Be bold

If you have something to say, say it. If you have a point to make, make it clearly and unambiguously. There is nothing to be gained by timidly hiding behind vague insinuations. Get your opinion out in the open. Say what you mean to say, with confidence and clarity. When you're clear about what needs to be done, take decisive action and do it. Not halfway, not halfheartedly, but with courage and determination. See it through to completion, boldly overcoming the obstacles which will surely arise.

Failing to speak up for what you approve of, gives support to what you oppose. Failing to decide, is a decision to fail. Failing to take action, allows opportunity to slip through your fingers.

You know who you are. You know what you believe. You know what must be done, and you know how to do it. Be confident. Be bold. The opportunity is now. Get it done.

Just a point of interest:

Arrest rate of Washington DC police officers: 19 per 1000

Arrest rate of New York City police officers: 3 per 1000

Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000

Which one should we disarm?

There are a lot of requests for this information, and the source for the same, and here's the stock answer:

First two: "D.C. Police Paying for Hiring Binge" Washington Post 8/28/94 pg. A01.

Last one: Memorandum by James T. Moore, Commissioner of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, to office of the Governor, dated 3/15/95.

Bro. Dan V. Catlin (elcm@southwind.net) ALERT No.390, Prophetic News Service

For all you scientists out there and for all the students who have a hard time convincing these people regarding the truth of the Bible...here's something that shows God’s awesome creation.

Did you know that the space program is busy proving that what has been called "myth" in the Bible is true? Mr. Harold Hill, President of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore, Maryland and a consultant in the space program, relates the following development.

"I think one of the most amazing things that God has for us today happened recently to our astronauts and space scientists at Green Belt, Maryland. They were checking the position of the sun, moon, and planets out in space where they would be 100 years and 1000 years from now. We have to know this so we won't send a satellite up and have it bump into something later on in its orbits. We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the satellite, and where the planets will be so the whole thing will not bog down.

They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong either with the information fed into it or with the results as compared to the standards. They called in the service department to check it out and they said "what's wrong?" Well they found there is a day missing in space in elapsed time.

They scratched their heads and tore their hair. There was no answer. Finally, a Christian man on the team said, "You know, one time I was in Sunday School and they talked about the sun standing still." While they didn't believe him, they didn't have an answer either, so they said, "Show us". He got a Bible and went back to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty ridiculous statement for any one with "common sense."

There they found the Lord saying to Joshua, "Fear them not, I have delivered them into thy hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee."

Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy and if darkness fell they would overpower them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! That's right- "The sun stood still and the moon stayed--- and hastened not to go down - about a whole day!" The astronauts and scientists said, "There is the missing day!"

They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshua's day was 23 hours and 20 minutes- not a whole day. They read the Bible and there it was "about (approximately) a day". These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble because if you cannot account for 40 minutes you'll still be in trouble 1,000 years from now. Forty minutes had to be found because it can be multiplied many times over in orbits.

As the Christian employee thought about it, he remembered somewhere in the Bible where it said the sun went BACKWARDS. The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the Book and read these words in 2 Kings: Hezekiah, on his death-bed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof.

Isaiah said "Do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees?" Hezekiah said "It is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backward 10 degrees..." Isaiah spoke to the Lord and the Lord brought the shadow ten degrees BACKWARD!

Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes! Twenty three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings make the missing day in the universe!" Isn't it amazing?

References: Joshua 10:8 and 12,13 2 Kings 20:9-11

?Do you believe the Bible? I get a couple of general answers to this question, and they range from "I guess so" to "I don’t know." It is an important question, and on your answer hinges your reactions to the world about you, and your future relationship with God.

?You see, if you believe the Bible, then you understand that one day you will stand before God and He will Judge you. You. Not your friend who sniggered when you mentioned the Bible, not your "minister" or your neighbor, and not your government "leader." You. And your wife/husband, as you are one. You. Are you ready for that? Do you believe the Bible?

?The Bible tells us that the meek shall inherit the earth. But, do you understand what "meek" means? In this context, meek refers to those who are trainable. In history, a "meek" war horse simply referred to a horse that was trainable in the art of war. Training implies study and effort to learn, and tells you the purpose for which you are on this earth. To learn, that one day you may be judged by God, according to His criteria. The only place you can learn of His criteria is in the Bible. How critical is this?

?Pretty critical, if you believe the Bible, especially as it pertains to His Law, because His Law is absolute and it is in operation, today, yesterday, and in every day of the future. That Law tells you that things are going to change on this earth, dramatically change, and soon. Change always occurs under His Law when the abuses of that Law become so pervasive as to cover the entire earth; I would judge that we are at that point. God does not arbitrarily say "It is time to change." His Law operates in such a way that when abuses become so widespread, a natural correction must take place. The science of the Bible simply limits excessive non-compliance with the natural Law of the Bible.

?The following two stories are from The Philadelphia Trumpet for February, 1999. You will be receiving this in the future as long as you ordered the two books listed as necessary in the previous Part XVII. The only problem with the following information is that it is missing certain key elements for full understanding, so please permit me to editorialize as we read:

The Countdown to the next millennium is now being numbered in mere days, and the economic events of 1998 have the entire world on the edge of their seats. As the global economy teeters by the precipice, which way will it go in 1999 -- toward stability -- or over the edge?

Economy, 1998 A Tumultuous Year Revisited

The Asian financial meltdown began in the summer of 1997 and became the world’s worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Amazingly, it was completely unforeseen by leading economists and financial forecasters. (Not technically correct: because this meltdown is inevitable, the plans for implementing the new Euro currency were well underway long before these events occurred. - David) What surprises are in store for 1999 if so many highly educated and thoroughly trained experts misread the signals about that manitude-10 economic earthquake? In 1998, mankind watched spellbound as severe shocks hammered every corner of the global economy. Even after massive bailouts in excess of $200 billion by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), nation after nation still fell into severe economic slowdown and recession.

Last year, Southeast Asia became a financial ghost town overrun by towering unemployment, numbing poverty and spreading social unrest which took the lives of thousands, especially in Indonesia. Hong Kong real estate, some of the highest-priced property in the world, plummeted 46 percent in value from a year earlier as the country went into the abyss of recession. Catastrophic drops in industrial production, trade balances, stock markets and GDP (Gross Domestic Product, the total sales of all goods and services in a country) crushed the economies of countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand.

In Latin America, the financial breakdown which ravaged Asia spread the Brazil, which spent $30 billion in 1998 defending its currency from speculators. In spite of a $41.5 billion IMF bailout in 1998, Brazil ended the year critically wounded (perhaps fatally), along with its other economically ailing South American comrades Argentina, Chile, Columbia and Venezuela.

1998 saw commodity prices for products like oil, steel and grain go into a free fall -- back to 1986 levels -- which decimated commodity-driven economies like Canada, Venezuela and Mexico. According to The Economist magazine, sugar prices declined in 1998 by 40 percent, nickel prices fell 35 percent, merino wool decreased 30 percent, and coffee, soybeans, copper, and maize saw prices erode between 18 and 20 percent. The world’s largest oil producer and exporter, Saudi Arabia, reported a $12.3 billion budget deficit for 1998 due to low oil revenues. With oil hovering in the $10 to $12 per barrel range, memories of the 1986 oil bust have sparked fears of a Middle East oil-related recession.

Russia defaulted on its domestic debts in 1998 as it tried to swallow capitalism and choked. This former superpower is now a dead man standing and has all but totally collapsed from the same economic phenomenon which has swept the other global emerging (and now submerging) markets. According to a poll in the Economist of January 2, 1999, for every Russian citizen who thinks the economy improved in 1998, eighteen others think their living standard worsened. While Russia’s people starve and widespread lawlessness threatens the security of nuclear technology and weapons, it is shameful to note that Russia found the money to deploy ten newly designed inter-continental nuclear missiles in 1998, and expects to produce 30 more by the end of 2000.

America, the land of the free-spender, survived a gut-wrenching roller coaster ride in the autumn of 1998 as the stock market fell 20 percent and then erratically rebounded 17 percent while the country desperately fought the effects of falling exports, declining industrial production and increasing layoffs. Retailers were disappointed with less-than-expected holiday spending. However, shoppers still piled on multiple billions of dollars of consumer debt as the supposedly religious sales frenzy was driven by falling import prices at a time when U.S. manufactures experienced an eight year low in sales and falling profits. In spite of an estimated 3.5 percent expansion of the U.S. economy in 1998 due to rampant consumer spending, declining profits forced many companies to lay off large numbers of employees, such as Boeing Aircraft announcing the lay off of 20 percent (48,000) of their workers. (What you are seeing here is a classic description of deflation. - David)

As companies around the globe reeled from financial tsunamis crashing down on them, more and more consolidated in order to raise profits and lower costs through staff reductions and other survival tactics. In 1998, merger-mania produced the world’s biggest ever year for mergers and acquisitions, reaching $2.4 trillion -- 50 percent more than 1997’s total. (Do you see the acceleration of the concentration of more and more wealth into fewer and fewer hands here? - David) The largest in value terms ($86.4 billion) was the union of two U.S. oil giants, Exxon and Mobil, which simultaneously announced the layoff of 9,000 workers as the worldwide oil business and oil-revenue-dependent countries staggered under basement-priced oil. More ominously, 1998 saw the gobbling up of many American firms by foreign buyers. German car maker Daimler-Benz joined Chrysler in the largest foreign takeover of an American firm ($40.5 billion). Likewise, Germany’s Deutsche Bank paid $10 billion for Bankers Trust, America’s ninth biggest bank. Germany’s media giant, Bertelsmann, bought America’s Random House to become the world’s largest English-language publisher.

Besides buying large chunks of corporate America, Europe also spent months testing and redesigning bank computer systems and their links to domestic stock exchanges and clearing houses in preparation for the January 1 launch of their new currency, the Euro, which they hope will break the domination of the dollar. (Of course it will; this is a natural course of events planned by the bankers long ago. - David) Last year, Europe also struggled under the weight of the global financial crisis, particularly due to their massive loan exposure in bankrupt Russia. Also unsettling the European picture in 1998 was a looming trade war with America, as the sound of rattling trade sabers and import tariff threats continued between the two trading giants over everything from bananas to cheese to suitcases. (Don’t believe this for a minute! The real issues here are genetically altered foods, which the Europeans want nothing to do with, and which the United States government is determined to force down the throats of the European people. - David)

Japan, the world’s second-largest economy, saw itself taking a back seat to the new Eurozone, as the land of the setting sun continued its decade-long death-spiral into financial oblivion. Japan’s 17 largest banks were found at the heart of the problem as they struggled under a mountain of bad loans, estimated in late 1998 to be Yen49,490 billion ($427 billion). (Of course; and the next story about 1999 explains why; the failure of the people to continue to pile on debt, while the government is unable to generate enough credit expansion to prop up the economy. Under this scenario, the credit, under the guise of "bad loans," must contract. - David) After an unrelenting slide from a high of 38,915 in 1989, Japan’s Nikkei 225 stock index closed 1998 at 13,842, less than 1,000 points above its 1998 low of 12,880. The Japanese stock market decline has meant that multiple tens of billions of investors dollars have evaporated as corporate and personal bankruptcies escalated.

The economic events of 1998 have the entire world on the edge of their seats. As the global economy teeters by the precipice, which way will it go in 1999 -- toward stability -- or over the edge?

1999 Turning Point for World’s Economy

The year began with a smooth start for the long-anticipated European common currency as the world began playing with its new toy. In what traders called a relatively quiet day for the world’s $1.5 trillion-a-day foreign-exchange markets, the Euro began its first official transactions in Asia on January 5 in the trading range of $1.179 to $1.182 per Euro. It is interesting that the ratio is stated as so many dollars per Euro instead of vice versa, thus making the Euro appear as the standard by which currencies are evaluated. From its outset, it appears the euro is destined to dominate the dollar. (Of course, and how the ratio is expressed is simply a message to "those in the know." - David)

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) of January 5 quotes Rebecca Patterson, a London-based currency strategist, as saying, "While the global economy is expected to slow further in 1999, we expect one of the larger downward revisions in growth to occur in the U.S." The article continues, "Two other factors weighing on the dollar will be a contraction in Latin American economies, especially Brazil, which Ms. Patterson said should ‘negatively affect U.S. economic strength,’ and the U.S.’s huge current-account (trade) deficit, which stands at more than $200 billion. (This is very interesting; by limiting production here, and making credit a way of life in America, they have used the U.S. as the credit engine to drive most of the world’s slave production of goods. However, these people understand the credit money system, very well, and they know that the U.S. is near the apex of the credit cycle, so what this woman says as "expectations" is misleading, to say the least. They KNOW what is going to happen, especially as they are restricting the total amount of credit created by the "government." More on this a little later. - David)

"Mr. Kit Juckes at NatWest Global Financial Markets also sees the euro climbing to $1.25 to $1.30 in six months. But he said the dollar had ‘a reasonable chance of getting to as low as 105 yen (down from 143 yen to the dollar as recently as August 28, 1998),’ but that such a strong yen was unsustainable.

"Noting the dollar’s fall against many currencies, [a California-based broker] said, ‘I think [the dollar] could fall another 20 percent.’"

As mentioned above, a major threat to the U.S. is an economic contraction in Brazil, the world’s ninth-largest economy, which just experienced a devastating currency devaluation on January 13. This re-emergence and continuation of the global financial crisis which started 18 months ago in Thailand will hammer Brazil and other Latin American countries from Argentina to Mexico with scarcer capital from foreign investors, higher interest rates and lower or even negative growth.

How much devastation the Brazilian currency devaluation will wreak remains to be seen. Economists now expect the whole region to tip into recession in 1999, sending shock waves into other global economies, especially America. Brazil is the biggest economy in Latin America and America’s 11th-largest export market. Also, U.S. banks have a loan exposure of $18.6 billion. With U.S. manufacturing already struggling due to a severe drop-off in exports to Asia, the loss of Latin American markets, which with Mexico comprise 20 percent of U.S. exports, makes America especially vulnerable to a rising competitor which is little understood by the world. (But perfectly understood by the bankers. - David)

When coupled with world news, Bible prophecy makes it clear that America will be driven into the dust by a German-led politico-religious conglomerate of nations which dominates world markets to briefly become the economic and trade center of the earth (see Rev. 13:15-17; 18:3, 11-19). To understand the identities of nations in the Bible, please request your free copy of The United States and Britain in Prophecy by the late Herbert W. Armstrong.

Because of America’s declining morality, graphically illustrated by the sins of its leaders, an unrepentant America is being punished by the great God as the world turns its back on its formerly great but now arrogantly wicked lover (Jer. 30:12-15; Ezek. 7:1-10; 16:35-39).

It is vitally important that we see behind the record-setting U.S. bubble (Remember; when bubbles pop, it is sudden, and not a gradual release. - David) stock market with all the hype and hoopla created to keep American consumer confidence up so that mindlessly materialistic and frenzied spending continues to prop up the failing world economy. Or, as it is written in the Financial Times of last December 23, "Blessed then are the spendthrifts for they will save the earth." (Nothing could be further from the truth, but they will sacrifice their own existence for a brief respite in the coming storm. - David)

If we sharpen our focus to peer beneath the shiny surface (Matt. 23:27), we see a world being squeezed by deflation, with global collapse in demand for goods and services compounded by sales prices falling below the cost of producing them. Widespread financial collapse and corporate and personal bankruptcies are rising as nations, companies and individuals grasp at financial straws trying to stave off the pall of poverty which has already spread over half of the world. Deflation is here. The question now is, can global depression be far behind?

1929 Again?

A major key to understanding the direction of the global economy is seen in Japan. Some analysts expect the Japanese Nikkei stock index to plunge below its 1998 low of 12,880 to the crushing level of 10,000 or less during 1999. Japan appears unable to stop its decade long economic fall. Major economies in irreversible decline are exactly what caused the Great Depression of the 1930s. (Not true; the Great Depression was easily avoidable by simply pumping "money" into the economy. But, by restricting the available medium of exchange, we find major economies in decline by design. - David) If Japan falls, America and the world will fall with it. (Especially when Japan starts dumping the billions of dollars they hold, probably in purchasing gold and silver. The Japanese are under firm control right now, and have been since 1945, but at some point, self-preservation will take over, and when it does, Japan will act in her own interest, and no longer in the interest of the international bankers who control all of the corporations [SONY = Standard Oil New Jersey] we THINK are Japanese.- David)

The WSJ of September 10, 1998, explains Japan’s dilemma by saying, "When a country suffers from recession, a common treatment involves cutting official interest rates in hopes of spurring greater borrowing, investment and consumption. That’s what the Bank of Japan tried yesterday." (Any bets on whether the Bank of Japan is privately owned or not? - David)

"But sometimes, a nation’s economy and financial system are so sick that conventional links between monetary policy and economic activity are damaged. Many economists think Japan is in just such a shape now...[and] think Japan has now fallen into a ‘liquidity trap,’ a bind no major economy has seen since the 1930s. In that state, interest rates hover near zero, but demand remains stagnant. There is no room to cut rates more."

The January/February issue of Foreign Affairs put it this way: "After its ‘bubble economy’ burst in 1991, Japanese authorities were at first reluctant to cut interest rates for fear of re-inflating the bubble. Sine 1996, however, short-term rates have been well under one percent and have now slipped to a quarter of one percent. Yet these extremely low rates were unable to prevent a slide into recession, let alone reverse the stagnation that has plagued the Japanese economy since 1992. Since few economists believe that shaving the last few decimal points off interest rates would make any significant difference, Japan really is caught in a classic liquidity trap, where zero is not low enough... (Think about that; interest rates at a quarter of one percent. Astounding. Is there anyone reading this who believes that the bankers have a heart, and care if people are starving to death because of high interest rates? No? Then why such low rates? Because Japan and her people have all the debt they can leverage, and are incapable of supporting more. When this happens, and it must happen in all credit systems, lending slows almost to zero [and the bankers hate that!], and every effort to stimulate the borrowing once again is doomed to failure until the system regurgitates most of the debt. This leaves most of the real wealth in the hands of a very few, and destroys the very fabric of a nation. When this happens to a single currency, in a single nation, it is a tragic event; when it happens to the entire world, and to the world’s reserve currency, it will be an event of Biblical proportions. - David)

But ten or even five years ago, few economists would have taken seriously the possibility that Japan could be in its present predicament, and thus the emergence of liquidity traps (This is simple new-speak for the condition which exists in a credit system when bank deposits begin to drop and creation of new credit becomes very hard, or impossible. - David) elsewhere is no longer inconceivable.

"Indeed, in the early 1990s some economists worried that the United States might be approaching liquidity-trap territory. The recession of 1990-91, brought on by a slump in consumer spending together with financial difficulties in the banking sector, was relatively mild but hard to turn around. In order to engineer a recovery, the Federal Reserve had to cut the benchmark federal funds rate to 3 percent -- more than 6 percentage points below its 1989 peak. Right now... the Fed’s base rate in the United States is only 4.75 percent, while the corresponding rate in Europe is only 3 percent. In other words, an interest rate reduction on the same scale is literally impossible. Nor are economic shocks that would require large interest rate cuts hard to envisage... last autumn the United States experienced a completely unexpected panic that briefly caused much of the nation’s financial mechanism to seize up, and had many normally optimistic observers suddenly talking about unavoidable recession... Fed officials have the sense that they narrowly dodged a bullet, and that the sniper may still be out there... Whereas two years ago it seemed inconceivable that other advanced nations could find themselves in such a liquidity trap, that kind of crisis now seems entirely conceivable -- and Japan’s experience shows how hard it can be, once in such a trap, to get out again."

According to Bible prophecy, America and Europe will be on an economic seesaw, with America going down and Europe going up. With the full view provided by combining news and prophecy, it is America which is in grave danger of an unstoppable fall over the precipice of financial ruin, Therefore, the question stands: Is 1999 the turning point for America’s, and ultimately the world’s, economy?

?Events as they are reported are never correct, or complete. I think that the man who wrote the above is probably a very honest, very caring man, but he either does not understand the true impact of what he is saying, or he assumes a level of knowledge in his readers that simply, by and large, does not exist.

?What is happening in Japan is an inevitable event given the mathematical parameters of a credit system; it is imploding. The debt load there reached the point where the people could not or would not support more debt, either through direct payments or more taxation, and when that happens, since a credit system absolutely depends on a continuously greater amount of debt being constantly created, the system begins to retract. That retraction occurs very rapidly in most cases, but Japan is a unique example, because much of Japan was created by the explosion of debt in America. Because of that, the process in Japan has been long and drawn out, and it also reveals that no matter what is said about "interdependency," the local economy is still the single most important factor in any nation. No outside factor can compensate for the lack of activity at home, and this is a very dangerous signal for America.

?These next two pieces of information serves to show how little we are really told about what is happening in the rest of the world, even when the information is presented!

MOSCOW, Feb. 26-A scandal over an offshore fund handling Russia's foreign currency reserves deepened today as a member of parliament charged that the Central Bank allowed the reserves to be used for buying and selling securities and then concealed the profits from the government. (Think about this; here is a central bank, of a Communist country [I hope you are not buying into the nonsense about how Russia has changed! If you have, the next piece will cure that!] concealing profits. Why? You don’t suppose it is privately owned, do you? Of course it is, and always has been. The very first central bank of Russia was established in cooperation with the bankers who financed the so-called Russian Revolution. - David)

Nikolai Gonchar, an independent member of the lower house of parliament and of its budget committee, raised new questions at a news conference about the conduct of the Central Bank, although many details are still unclear. (Another interesting piece of information here is the news that came out about 1995, detailing how unhappy several members of the Russian government were because they had caught representatives from the Chase Manhattan bank teaching the people who operated the Russian central bank about how to run two sets of books, so they could conceal certain operations from government representatives. It was reported at the same time that representatives of the Federal Reserve Bank were part of the training cadre. I don’t guess that it is possible for bankers to change - David)

Gonchar charged that the Central Bank had set up an intricate scheme to exploit billions of dollars in Russia's national reserves by investing them secretly in high-yield Russian government bonds known as GKOs and concealing the profits from the parliament and government.

Earlier, it was disclosed that the Central Bank had set up an offshore firm, Financial Management Co., known as Fimaco, based in Jersey, the Channel Islands, to handle Russia's foreign currency reserves. By one estimate, the offshore fund managed $37 billion between 1993 and 1998. The firm was a subsidiary of Eurobank of Paris, which is 78 percent owned by the Central Bank. (What is also interesting here is that this central bank is authorized to create and loan Federal Reserve notes (otherwise known as "dollars." - David)

The disclosures have stirred controversy because it is highly unusual for a Central Bank to turn over management of a country's reserves to someone else. Moreover, questions have been raised about whether the offshore accounts were used to mislead the International Monetary Fund and other international financial organizations about the size of Russia's reserves. The case is the subject of a criminal investigation, but Russia's chief prosecutor resigned after disclosing the existence of the offshore fund and has not yet been replaced.

The scandal also could affect decisions expected this spring on whether to continue aid to Russia. Moreover, the State Duma, parliament's lower house, is engaged in a debate about whether to impose stronger controls on the Central Bank.

Gonchar said the Central Bank had, in effect, found a hidden method to take advantage of soaring yields on Russian government bonds. He said the Central Bank reaped large profits on these security trades. By law, the Central Bank is supposed to donate 50 percent of any profits it receives to the Russian federal budget. (50% of profits! Who owns the bank, then? - David)

Gonchar claimed that Eurobank and its subsidiary, Fimaco, had created a third company to carry out the scheme -- a Russian bank called Eurofinance. He said the major shareholders in Eurofinance were Eurobank and Fimaco. He further claimed that Eurofinance then served as the back door by which investments were made in the GKOs.

In one series of transactions, he said, Fimaco earned $38 million in net profits. "I want to stress that under the existing laws, they were supposed to transfer half of this sum to the budget," he said. "This information was thoroughly concealed. Where has the profit gone to? The issue is a concrete one: We can and must find this money."

The GKOs were high-yielding, short-term bonds that piled up so large that eventually the government could no longer refinance them, leading to the Aug. 17, 1998, devaluation of the ruble. It is known the Central Bank had GKOs in its portfolio. But Gonchar said it was using the hidden approach to invest the foreign currency reserves in the GKOs because of legal restrictions to its open participation in the primary market.

He said the Central Bank was essentially an insider and should not have been allowed to invest as it did. "What we got was not a market, but a group of insiders," he said.

(From World Net Daily)

?Is this the total story? No, but it is an important aspect to understand what we can expect in America. When you read about the Russian Gulags and the killing of millions of Russians, mostly by other Russians, it is best to realize that the control of Russia, today and in the beginning, is the same as those who control "the City" and Washington, DC. It is only by grasping this fact that proper preparations can be made. Meanwhile, have things changed in Russia? Read on and judge for yourself.

Old enemies

As the national attention has been focused on the "egregious, reprehensible, indefensible" personal behavior of our national disgrace, dark forces work in the shadows to synthesize a threat far greater than a sexual predator in the oval office.

Russia and China have been conspiring (covertly and openly) to undermine the strength and viability of the United States of America. This claim is not the product of right-wing wacky paranoia. ... It is real, growing, and significant.

My friend and publisher, Joseph Farah, often suggests we "Connect the Dots." I have taken his advice and connected a variety of separate issues and interviews, and the conclusion is scary.

About a year ago, I interviewed Col. Stanislav Lunev regarding his book "Through the Eyes of the Enemy." When Lunev's book came out, most everyone focused on his claims of suitcase-size nuclear weapons he reported were already here in the United States. However, although it makes for a jazzy movie, the briefcase nukes are only one element in a long list of items which suggests to some experts, that Russia is preparing for a first-strike war.

When I first started hearing reports of a Russian precipitated first strike, my immediate reaction was "Bullfeathers!" Hell, Russia is in financial ruin, can't feed their people, can't pay the military, and couldn't find or field a full division anymore than they could find their collected derriere with both hands. That is the "conventional wisdom" I had come to believe. ... I was wrong, way wrong.

I recently interviewed a young intelligence researcher (Jeffrey Nyquist) who listed several ominous "dots" in the wake of more extensive interviews with Lunev:

Russia is stockpiling grain.

Russia continues to beg for more food from the West.

Russia is slaughtering its herds.

Russia is increasing fuel production.

Russia is stockpiling fuel.

Slaughtering fur-bearing animals.

Russia continues to build weapons despite treaty agreements to the contrary.

Russia continues to expand its deep water navy.

Russian weapons systems are vulnerable to potential Y2K catastrophic failures. Several experts suggest Russia feels compelled to "use it or lose it" regarding its arsenal.

Russia recently entered into an alliance with Communist Red China specifically designed to undermine the West's dominance as a world power.

Russia continues to lie, obfuscate, deny and dissemble regarding all the above.

Russia refuses to allow any kind of inspections as a condition for receipt of any western aid.

Development of vast underground "cities" capable of housing over 30,000.

Any one of the above elements alone might be rationalized, explained away, or spun as "no big deal." However, as you connect the dots, a sickening feeling grows.

David Hoffman of the Washington Post Foreign Service recently reported "a scandal over an offshore fund handling Russia's foreign currency reserves." He reported "a member of parliament charged that the Central Bank allowed the reserves to be used for buying and selling securities and then concealed the profits from the government." No, this isn't the Clinton cabal, this is the poor destitute Russians.

The Washington Post reports: "Nikolai Gonchar, an independent member of the lower house of parliament and of its budget committee, raised new questions at a news conference about the conduct of the Central Bank, although many details are still unclear.

"Gonchar charged that the Central Bank had set up an intricate scheme to exploit billions of dollars in Russia's national reserves by investing them secretly in high-yield Russian government bonds known as GKOs and concealing the profits from the parliament and government."

This reminded me of a novel (fiction) I had read 10 years ago. However, that was fiction. ... This is fact. It had previously been revealed the Central Bank had set up an offshore firm, Financial Management Co., known as Fimaco, based in Jersey, the Channel Islands, to handle Russia's foreign currency reserves. Wait a minute ... "reserves?" ... We have been led to believe Russia was down on its frozen bottom begging for charity sustenance. Well, according to one estimate, between 1993 to 1998, the offshore fund managed $37 billion. Yes, $37-Billion (with a B). The firm was a subsidiary of Eurobank of Paris, which (by the way) is currently 78 percent owned by the Central Bank.

This epiphany has sparked considerable controversy since it is highly unusual/strange/weird for a Central Bank to turn over management of a country's reserves to someone else (if it had). Additionally, questions are now being asked about whether the offshore accounts were used to primarily as a tool to mislead the International Monetary Fund and other international financial organizations about the size of Russia's reserves. Gee, they have lied about food, fuel, weapons, fur for winter clothing, and the entire table or organization of the military ... would Russia lie about establishing an offshore banking presence to hypothecate reserve funds? Damn straight they would ... and apparently are. "The case is the subject of a criminal investigation," the Post writes, " but Russia's chief prosecutor resigned after disclosing the existence of the offshore fund" And guess what? His replacement has not yet been named, and therefore, no criminal investigation has even started. (Of course not! In Russia, you do not investigate the bankers anymore than you do in the United States! - David)

I remember Lunev telling me that the KGB is not dead. ... It is very much alive and well. According to Lunev, the alleged Russian Mafia, is in fact controlled by the former KGB. The nomenclature has changed, but the goals, objectives, tactics and mission remains the same today as it was during the Cold War.

I asked Nyquist if we (the United States) had imposed any requirements/restrictions on Russian aid. In other words, do we require anything from the Russians (any quid pro quo) other than receipt of our largess? The answer was a startling "No." At one point Russia had tried to sell our charity for a profit. We did scream about that, and it was supposed to stop. The financial scandal also could (and should) affect decisions anticipated this spring regarding whether to continue aid to Russia. Moreover, the State Duma, parliament's lower house, is engaged in a debate about whether to impose stronger controls on the Central Bank. Is the debate form over substance ... perception over reality?

According to Gonchar the Central Bank had, in effect, found a hidden method to take advantage of soaring yields on Russian government bonds. He reported the Central Bank realized huge profits on these security trades. Russian law requires the Central Bank to donate 50 percent of any profits it receives to the Russian federal budget.

The Washington Post reported: "Gonchar claimed that Eurobank and its subsidiary, Fimaco, had created a third company to carry out the scheme -- a Russian bank called Eurofinance. He said the major shareholders in Eurofinance were Eurobank and Fimaco. He further claimed that Eurofinance then served as the back door by which investments were made in the GKOs."

In one series of transactions, that makes Hillary Clinton's commodity trades look like chump change, he said, Fimaco earned $38 million in net profits. "I want to stress that under the existing laws, they were supposed to transfer half of this sum to the budget," he said. Then again, I guess that is contingent on the specific definition of "existing law," or what is meant by "transfer," and/or what specific "budget" is referenced. "This information was thoroughly concealed. Where has the profit gone to? The issue is a concrete one: We can and must find this money."

So, connect the dots: Stockpiling grain; continued foreign aid; slaughtering herds; increasing fuel production, stockpiling fuel; increased weapons development; growing their navy; fear of Y2K impact; China/Russia alliance; refusal of any and all inspections; denials and lies; money laundering and building vast underground cities.

Is this much ado about nothing, or the preamble to something real bad?

(World Net Daily)

?Interesting, isn’t it. Read the following to understand how deeply the type of men who control Russia are imbedded into the United States.

Subject: The REAL Al Gore, Sr. & Jr. - Communist to the core!

How many of the people that subscribe to the WGEN or PSC lists really know the "truth" about Vice President Al Gore, Jr?

If Clinton is forced from office, do the people on this list "believe" that Gore will make a "good" President? Let's take a look at some of the "truth" about Gore. Click on the following WebPage and see what the Gore family is really representative of:

<http://www.hoffman-info.com/essay7.html>

The author is Michael A. Hoffman II, a former reporter for the New York Bureau of the Associated Press, and for the American Contemporary Radio Division of ABC News. This "former" reporter minces no words and tells it like it really is. At another location on his WebPages, he states the following - regarding the truth:

"It is always the inclination of man to deny reality, to tidy things up, to wrap perception in the pretty party ribbon of partisanship and prejudice. It is the fate of the revisionist historian to forever wander the frontiers beyond party and dogma, cognizant of the original sin of his own subjectivity, but always struggling to see more, and give an account of what he sees with an utter disregard for the consequences of so fugitive a vocation.

"Even at this juncture, information is not enough. For the key to getting as close to the truth as we can depends not on obtaining the most information, but rather, in honing our ability to detect fraud. Information is power, but it is not wisdom.

"Revisionist history consists in the art of discerning fraud and the courage to publicly strip illusion, even when the whole world is clamoring violently for it. " Michael A. Hoffman II

This man talks the talk and walks the walk. NO SACRED COWS!

?Within this context, it is necessary to understand other ‘things.’ For instance, Hillary Clinton is a Jewess; her father is a Rabbi in Chicago. Since I ‘think’ and ‘believe’ that Clinton is a Rockefeller, this would make him a Jew as well. To better understand, please look at these two sites: the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion at

http://www.thewinds.org/library/protocols_of_zion.html

When you look at the next site, please keep in mind that Communism is and always has been a Jewish movement and is the full extension of Talmudic Law.

http://www.torahscroll.com/to03018.htm

?I would not recommend that you spend too much time at this site; it is better not to expose yourself to more evil than necessary. I also want to thank my friend for the location of this information.

?When I mention evil, let me add a little more here; I have mentioned television several times in these papers. Do your children watch a lot of TV? When they are exposed to a dozen or so murders every week, do you think that this may be a process of desensitizing them? Could it be deliberate? When that child joins the armed forces and is told to murder civilians, do you think this desensitizing may have an impact on his willingness to obey "orders?" How about you? Do you ‘believe’ that you can watch such filth without effect?

?How about the promoting of homosexuality? Does this concern you on the TV? And if not, why not? What are homosexuals?

?They are sexual predators. They can not reproduce, so the only method that they have to add to their numbers is by preying on unsuspecting, and generally young, individuals. In this regard, you should take a close look at the ‘man-boy love club of New York.’ They are actively campaigning for a reduction in the age limits on consensual sex, between an adult and a child. If I understand correctly, they want the age of consent to be reduced to twelve. If this does not upset you, I do not know what will.

?Have you ever seen the figures on how many homosexuals there are in Hollywood? And how many Jews? It just might have something to do with why it is promoted on TV.

?What are homosexual practices? I think everyone knows, but do you understand? Tell you what you do; take a fishing pole, and go on down to your local sewage treatment plant. Do a little fishing there, and see what it is you catch. What? Doesn’t appeal to you? Why?

?This is what homosexuals do; the anus is not a sexual organ. It is the sewer pipe for the body. It is exactly the same thing. In this regard, seeing what you might catch, it is interesting to note the demographics of age as it relates to the death rates of homosexuals, prior to AIDS. The average age of death for homosexuals, PRIOR TO AIDS, was 42. Think about that; 42 was the average age that homosexuals could expect to live to. Wonderful life, don’t you think?

reply to: Liberty-and-Justice@mailbox.by.net

If you don't want to be taken for an unflinchingly incisive whirlwind tour of the roots of our societal problems, just delete this message.

Otherwise: you will be glad you read these -- especially if you're perplexed about the decline of our educational system. Trust me (see warning, however). Although they contain a few typos and a couple of points here and there which (barely) miss the mark, of all the modern commentary I've read -- and that's a good chunk -- these come closer to Francis Schaeffer's example-oriented distillations than any other that I recall. A cultural Rosetta Stone for the current societal state.

In short, this is the kind of stuff I want to write "when I grow up".

Warning: you may (should) be disturbed/bothered/angered/motivated by what you read in the following texts.

http://www.zolatimes.com/V2.44/original.html

http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.6/Fascism.html

http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.9/fifth.html

http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.10/publiced.html

If you cannot access a browser, let me know and I'll e-mail the texts to you.

Jamie W. "visualize honest media" Jackson, truth addict

"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already.'" --Adolf Hitler

The Facts -- Read 'Em And Weep

From: Terry W. Stough The American Resistance Movement

I have known the Informer a.k.a. Big Al, etc. for quite a while, both in person and through the Internet. I consider him to be one of the absolute top alternative legal researchers I know. And when Big Al speaks, I listen. Especially when he speaks of the Fraud which is the United States Constitution -- he has the facts to back him up and has written several excellent books covering only a brief part of his vast research.

If you are like me, you have been excited and frustrated over all the legal theories which sound great and just don't work.

So after the Informer's latest effort below, I wrote to ask him the solution. The answer isn't very appealing, but I am beginning to realize that there are very few options if we truly want freedom.

First, The Informer:

To all. The following is taken from Blackstone's Commentary. It includes where the King owns all "public property" in America. But the following shows how and why they can do to you, what they do when claiming you are the States subject and the State is your sovereign. I don't want to hear any arguments to the contrary because, to the State, they do not exist.

All arm chair patriots who have not experienced for themselves, an actual battle in a tax case or driver license case, in which they set a precedent for all others to follow, is why this is written. Those that have actual experience of what actually goes on and why you could not enter any exculpatory evidence whatsoever, know exactly what I mean. That is a fact that you should all be made aware, and deal with reality.

I can't italicize all that is in here as it does not come across on Juno. I will Capitalize those words below that show the how and why. You can then take it from there. It is only one paragraph but states the whole ball of wax and why I and several others have preached that you never want to be a State or United States citizen claiming some god-awful piece of trash called the constitution.

Chap. 8] OF PERSONS. 299-300 XVI. The next branch of the king's ordinary revenue consists in forfeitures of lands and goods for offenses; bona confiscata, ('49) as they are called by the civilians, because they belonged to the fiscus or imperial treasury; or, as our lawyers term them, forisfacta; that is, such whereof the property is gone away or departed from the owner. (50) The true reason and only substantial Found of any forfeiture for crimes consists in this; THAT ALL PROPERTY IS DERIVED FROM SOCIETY, being one of those civil rights which are conferred upon individuals, IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT DEGREE OF NATURAL FREEDOM WHICH EVERY MAN MUST SACRIFICE WHEN HE ENTERS INTO SOCIAL COMMUNITIES. If therefore a MEMBER OF ANY NATIONAL COMMUNITY violates the fundamental CONTRACT OF HIS ASSOCIATION, by transgressing the municipal law, HE FORFEITS HIS RIGHT to such privileges as he claims by that contract; and THE STATE MAY VERY JUSTLY RESUME THAT PORTION OF PROPERTY, OR ANY PART OF IT, WHICH THE LAWS HAVE BEFORE ASSIGNED HIM. Hence, in every offense of an atrocious kind, the laws of England have exacted a total confiscation of the movables or personal estate; and in many cases a perpetual, in others only a temporary, loss of the offender's immovables or landed property, and have vested them both in the king, who is the person supposed to be offended, being the one visible magistrate in whom the majesty of the public resides. The particulars of these forfeitures will be more properly recited when we treat of crimes and misdemeanors. I therefore only mention them here, for the sake of regularity, as a pan of the census regalis; and shall postpone for the present the further consideration of all forfeitures, excepting one species only, which arises from the misfortune rather than the crime of the owner, and is called a deodand.(51) (In other words, the perfect explanation of Socialism. - David)

Oh! You all should read the footnote on this page. In part it states,

"[Also concerning those things which are accounted waifs, as of beasts of the plough, where the owner does not appear, and which were formerly the property of the finder by natural right, belong now to the king by the law of nations]."

OK people the Treaty of 1783 [ED -- see information on this treaty below] was drafted under the law of nations which actually was the cause of the creation of the Constitution of the United States with the King still in the passenger seat telling the driver what, why, when, where and how to drive. Then every State which joined the Union was compelled to change their constitutions, which most drafted right at the year 1776, just before and right after the Declaration of Independence.

And, the majority of the people then just loved it to no end, just like the stupid people of today. You see it was Patrick Henry and all those other anti-federalists that warned we were under a monarchy if the Constitution was passed and they did not listen. Much is the same today with only a handful of us preaching the same as over 200 years ago. They all want to be a "member of a social community" and sit on the juries to convict you because, "Why where would we be if you didn't pay taxes like I do?" or "I got to have a license to drive, what makes you any different?" And the court sits back smugly, under presumption, that you are a "member."

Well I hope you see why we never win a major case and why, in a tax case, or for that matter a driver license case, you will never prevail. How many people out there have been before a traffic court claiming they won their case where they did not need a license? Now I dare that same man to go into any state, drive up to any road block or hail over a police officer and say, "You know what, I don't need a driver license and here is my court case that proves it." Now for those that have, have you ever traveled into nazi Jersey and tried that and got away with it? No! I dare you to do it. Just drive up to State police Headquarters in West Trenton and show them that you don't need a driver license.

For Tax cases? Well what are so many people in jail for if the people are sovereign? Please I would like to know the answer because I have researched and helped people since 1983 and I have not found one Sovereign yet. All I know is every argument that could be given has been given and they all lost. Reason? Reread the above. The courts work on fiction and presumption that you are a "member" of the community because of "minimum contact" with the State. They always call you a person, resident, individual, or inhabitant don't they? Whether you are registered to vote or not, to them it does not matter. Of course being registered to vote as a "member in a community" that gave up rights to join is your one way ticket to jail. Remember they can't let the "enemy"/slaves--Ryot tenor win his case for then all slaves will try it. I am sincerely disgusted with all the powers to be, in any mode whatsoever and the stupid people who look up to them. Surely you all know of whom I speak. The Informer

[ABOUT THE DEFINITIVE TREATY OF 1783 -- This was THE treaty which ended the "misunderstandings" between America and England. It REQUIRED that we form a Constitution, dictated some of the terms of the Constitution and MOST IMPORTANTLY, set forth that EVERYTHING THE KING AND HIS AGENTS OWNED BEFORE THE WAR, THEY STILL OWNED. This was the WHOLE of the Thirteen Colonies, etc..

The Constitution contained the phrase "and Treaties" specifically to include the 1783 Treaty. This has been thoroughly supported in research by the Informer and others who FIRST BROUGHT THE DEFINITIVE TREATY onto American soil a year or so ago. When the Informer speaks derogatorily of the Constitution as a fraud, he does so with irrefutable documentation.]

28 Dec 1998 19:03:22 -0500 lawfulgovt@juno.com (Terry W Stough) writes:

OK, I know what doesn't work. And I really appreciate the decades of work you have done to try to find the way out.

Can you sent a response saying what does work and allows someone (or group) to live without interference and without being attacked by the parasites?

I have seen people try it all and I have never seen anyone truly get out of their system. Terry

Response From The Informer:

NOTHING WORKS in court. The only success we have had in tax cases is to stop indictments or to cause the IRS to back off a LITTLE, not a lot.

NOTHING WORKS to keep the State of United States off your back. People have to wake up and smell the rotten stench that eminates from the bowels of any legislative body before they can decide to either bow down and lick their boots or start popping them off. There is NO IN BETWEEN. I repeat THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN. The sooner we accept the fact that we are enemy/slaves the better off we will be in accepting that we cannot prevail except by V B R, period.

Only in my case did I get a letter of apology from the Department of Treasury, a complete vindication of all accounts, fines, penalty, and accruals wiped out to a 0.00 balance from 1982 to August 1998 and four years 95, 96, 97 and 98 where the IRS said "Tax Module not on MF", because all previous years were wiped clean. However, let me or my wife try to get a job and it all comes crashing down, because we would be up against the W-4, SS, form this, form that, or you don't get hired. So are we really free. HELL NO! Only in Dewey's case did they pull the Grand Jury from Dewey's case. This is all in administrative process where that is our only attack and that only keeps them at bay till some hot shot from the IRS gets tired and hauls you ass into court on trumped up charges, sends a swat team out or just plain blows you away. (This is true. - David)

Pete Stern has admitted finally after spending weeks in Washington before all the courts, that indeed I was right all along, we have no courts to go to. And it is Congresses fault. Whoop deee do, it has always been Congresses fault as the stench comes from all BAR NONE as to who their masters are, and it ain't the people or themselves. Big Al

29 Dec 1998 09:29:25 -0500 lawfulgovt@juno.com (Terry W Stough) writes:

TERRY: In your previous message, you said "we cannot prevail except by V B R, period." What is V B R?

THE INFORMER: VIOLENT BLOODY REVOLUTION

TERRY: You should dress (expand, etc.) your response to me up a little and send it to everyone.

THE INFORMER: Hey, I'll leave it up to you to send it. Might sound better coming from you, the person who asked the question. What do you think? Big Al

?The above is very important. Most of what The Informer writes is correct, although a little bitter and quite angry. But I can deal with that, and certainly understand it. I have a number of friends who are in prison, and I have no doubt that, if the decision is made that I am making too much trouble, I shall join them. And you will never find anyone more out of the system than I am. I have filed no "tax returns" for over two decades, have no current Social Security number, have not "banked" for more than ten years (much more), and carry no licenses of any kind, and have not for many years. Yet, given that, I understand that they will "take care" of me if they decide to, so I also understand how at risk anyone who has anything is. These people are thieves, and they have the mind set of thieves. Thieves with a lot of guns and the illusion of "law." This makes them double dangerous, because many of them actually believe, even while they are stealing money or property from people, that they are "right."

?That being said, we are now faced with a very tough decision. What to do? And to answer this question, each must search inside of themselves and decide exactly what it means to be a Christian. Can you contract with the beast and be a Christian? Can you pay taxes to support the activities (abortion and population control come to mind immediately) of the beast and be a Christian? Can you accept licensing from the beast, particularly when it is licensing designed to limit how you can help people who desperately need your help (the particular licenses that come to mind here are for doctors and the clergy)? What, exactly, does it mean to be a Christian?

?I quit paying taxes when I discovered how my taxes were being used to destroy my nation and my people, and at that time, I had no real idea of the true picture; I simply would not participate. As it turned out, I was correct, but not for the reasons that I thought. Now, when I understand more, you can see the continuing line of decisions I have reached and where it has brought me, and the work I willingly do. Do I expect that everyone will make the identical decisions that I have? Of course not, but in many ways it is not necessary either. There is a lot more knowledge out here now, and it is, in no small measure, provided you pay close attention, possible to avoid many of the traps laid by the beast. But to make a decision to be a Christian is more than this. It also involves making decisions NOT to hurt people.

?As I have said before; there is no right way to do the wrong thing. What does this mean? And here is where knowledge begins to put binders on you; Do you operate a grocery store? And sell Aspartame? Or products with Aspartame in them? Or tooth paste with fluoride? For money do you do this? For profit?

?Are you a dentist, still giving fluoride treatments to people? Or putting mercury fillings into their mouths? Or a doctor, dispensing drugs for money? Are you a teacher teaching less than the whole Truth, or permitting pressures to silence you? Are you an insurance salesman selling international contracts and limiting people’s liability for injuring others? How about a policeman? Are you a policeman pulling people into private contract courts where the judge benefits from every fine you issue? Can you be a Christian in such situations? And I warn you, the answer is not for me; it is for you, and for God. And He already knows the answer.

?In Scripture, we are told that very few will be saved, and that the Christian walks a lonely road, apart from virtually all others. This is true, and I think you are beginning to see why this is so. But the wages of sin are death; death for all time; non-existence for all of eternity; true, ever-lasting death. There is no right way to do the wrong thing. These are the decisions you face. These are the decisions we all face, and our decisions are our own. No one else is or can be held accountable for your actions.

?I have learned something different about the United States that I do not like. Why is most of the rest of the world anxious to be there? Is it because of the freedom? That is what we are told, but is it true? Listen closely when you hear of those who wish to be United States citizens, and judge for yourself. Is not what you hear generally based on economics? You can get rich in the United States! In the United States you can have everything! So, generally, the illusions created by the credit system is the reason why everyone wants to go to the United States today. In the past, it was freedom, and mostly, religious freedom; now, it is economics.

?To be a Christian means to strong in His Word, and to never inure another. To depend upon Him for protection, and, in His protection, act, talk and walk as a Christian. Never shirk your duty, and never turn from His Path. And never, never submit to contractual obligations which can or will hurt someone, or restrict your obligations to help others.

?I know what is coming in America, and I fear for my people. Not because of the other side’s guns; but for the ignorance of my people. I will not fight for man’s government; not under any circumstance. I will defend myself, and my loved ones, and my community. But I understand that the other side has more troops and guns than is conceivable, and that my only defense is with Him. When you read the following part, you will understand how and why they have so many guns.

Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York stated, "Taxes for revenue are obsolete." This is the famous paper he read before the American Bar Association during the last year of World War II, reprinted from American Affairs, January, 1946 issue. As stated by the Editor, "His (Ruml's) thesis is that given (1) control of a central banking system and (2) an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences. ... " See item #42 in the "File Cabinet" section of the ICE Web site.

ICE ice@coolmedia.net http://www.coolmedia.net/ice/

"If all bank loans were paid... there would not be a dollar of coin or currency in circulation. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation. We are absolutely without a permanent money system". - Robert Hemphill, Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta, in foreword to "100% Money" by Irving Fisher

?I know I have used the above quote from Robert Hemphill before, but it just floors me everytime I see it; that we, the people of America, could be so silly as to be seduced by easy credit into giving up all of our freedoms for the slavery of debt is almost beyond my understanding. Of course, before I started understanding, I borrowed every dime I could lay my hands on! I wonder why none of this is explained in the government schools?

?The first part of the above is important. In it, Beardsley Ruml reveals that "they" understand perfectly what is going on; the conditions which exist in America are no accident. You can also rest assured that the government has mathematical models which tell them exactly when the economy will collapse (within a year or so), and that studies have been done as to what is best (for those in power) as regards permitting the collapse to occur naturally, or to help it along so that all preparations can be ready on THE DAY of the collapse. That is how completely they control "the system," to where they can decide on the very day of the collapse, as they did in 1929.

?Also, you see admitted in this speech by Beardsley Ruml the information about the real use of taxes in America. It has nothing to do with revenue; it is for social engineering. This means that those in control can have whatever they wish, as far as guns, carrier battle groups, troops, warplanes, etc., are concerned. All they have to do is print a few more bonds, and increase taxes a bit for the pay-off of the bankers, who also own the armaments industry.

?The date of the above is also interesting, as it reveals that our root problems did not start in the 80s, the 70s, or the 50s, but well before, and this shows how carefully has been the planning behind the bankers incursions into America, and our weaknesses in permitting this to occur. And that weakness centers around the ease of credit here, and our ever-increasing now! now! attitude. And because most of us no longer read Scripture, and those that do read, no longer believe: the borrower is SLAVE to the lender. We have been seduced by the lie that the Law no longer applies, and that "the system" was designed for us.

?I had one man write and tell me that I was off base, because the Constitution was a framework for freedom. I wrote back and asked for a better explanation, because the way I understood it, a framework was designed to enclose and restrict something, but that perhaps I did not understand freedom, so would he please explain to me the forfeiture laws now being used as a part of this framework, and how that applied to freedom? He never did answer. But then, maybe I just don’t get it...

?I think I have mentioned before that I do not bank. Period. I will not permit my money to be used for fractional reserve purposes. In this regard, the following is an interesting site that describes banking in the near future. How prepared are we to live outside the banking system? I am very prepared, and I suggest you begin preparations, if you have not already done so.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/banking/basics/3013.asp

?To support this monster, our courts have been changed. The following is one of themost lucid understandings of what has occured that I have ever read.

Send reply to: Liberty-and-Justice@mailbox.by.net

In the context of the artificial person which you call fiction of law, it might be said that one volunteers into today's equity jurisdiction. When they bring you into their equity under arrest, however, not being volunteered by their trickery is quite a challenge, I think.

English courts have combined Law and Equity jurisdictions. And have had for practically the whole of this century. See Maitland.

I wonder if public legal ownership is not the essence of public policy. Certain it is that the equitable owner has the use of the car and the land which the State of is the legal owner of. But, these trusts are entered into by us legal incompetents under the guidance of officers of the court (known as lawyers - David). People who think all this registration stuff is based on contracts are wrong, I think. It is all trust law devilishly combined with police power in a state of emergency by reason of necessity (Basically true; however, Trusts are contracts, so even in the face of "emergency," the contract/equity forum is still kept - David).

From: Inhabitant of the Conquered Land <murlyn@crosslink.net>

Subject: Re: Gasmbly Is there a supreme Court? (formerly law v. equity)

The forums in existence today throughout America, are not Courts. These forums are legislative Tribunals, which are administrative agencies, convened under the rules of Equity, which is the deliberation of contract law.

These forums are private commercial courts. You do have to Volunteer to appear in these forums. The rise of the Chancellor’s court in merry old England was a result of the harshness of the Common Law. One could win at the Common Law venue, but the losing party was not always forthcoming with the damages awarded.

The King’s Chancellor, would acknowledge the appeal of the suitor who voluntarily entered the Chancellor’s forum seeking redress of damages, and grievances. The Chancellor would compel the appearance of the Defendant. (Today, these are called ‘tickets’ and ‘warrants.’ - David)

In one Case wherein the King’s Chancellor was attempting to convict William Penn, the Chancellor instituted harsh and brutal actions against the Jury members. The Jury Stood fast, and saved the Common Law protections of Englishmen.

The strength of the Chancellor’s venue, was the power of the King could, and would be used to compel the losing party to perform. In England today, you still have a Common Law Court, and across the way is the Equity Court. Here in American , you have one Courthouse.

There is no law, when you have no legal title to your property, or yourself.

That Subpoena you mentioned is a statutory order to appear addressed to a Fiction of Law. If you choose to volunteer you become the Resident Agent of this fiction.

That Subpoena is issued in the name of a fiction , by a fiction, this State. Wonder why? Simple, the Fiction of Law, this State, is operating in commerce.

In Blackstone’s Commentary it was stated that to bring suit in the name of a Fiction was a contempt of Court. Yet today, all suits issued by this State, are in the presence and name of the Fiction of Law. (All capital letters. - David)

The Problems which you apparently overlook, are the questions, what is Law, and what is legal title as opposed to equitable title?

Ask a question, why do you, or what compels you, to register yourself and your property with this State. (Pay attention; the same is true of your marriage, or your children! What possesses us that we do such things! Or, that our so-called ministers assure us that it is all right to do so, and we believe them! - David)

"In a age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

From: jay rutledge <noborders@worldnet.att.net>

To: Inhabitant of the Conquered Land <murlyn@crosslink.net

Equity is contract law, better known as the law merchant.

Not quite so. Equity is that division of judging in which appeal is made to the reason and conscience of the court. When Sir Thomas More was Chancellor of England he granted a remedy from the rigor of the common law on bond over the objections of the common law judges. This established an avenue of appeal for those who had no remedy at common law or for whom the judgement of the common law seemed against reason and justice. People commenced to appeal "for redress of grievance" to the King's Chancellor. And a new division of judging slowly developed. The judge in equity has remedies to offer which the judge at common law had not. These remedies are the injunction and the decree for specific performance to the terms of a contract. The judge in equity also has exclusive jurisdiction over trusts as the concept of one holding for the use of another is not within the common law of contract.

During the regime of the Star Chamber, judges in equity presided over criminal and political trials in England. When a person is charged under a statute in America today, the proceedings are in criminal equity as they are definitely not according to due process or rules of the common law.

It is misleading to say one volunteers into any equity proceeding. A subpoena, originally a writ of subpoena, summons a party to court. The judge in equity has the power of fine and imprisonment to enforce his writs.

From: Inhabitant of the Conquered Land <murlyn@crosslink.net>

Subject: Re: GAsmbly> Is there a supreme Court? formerly law v. equity

Within Article III, section I, is the constituted supreme court of the United States. Now where in that Article does it state that the Congress can legislate the number of Judges?

The Congress of the United States can invest inferior Courts with this constituted Judicial power which is incorporated in Article III, section I. The Congress of the United States did invest an inferior systems of Courts, |known as legislative tribunals, pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 9. This was the purpose of the Judiciary Act of September 24th, 1789.

The Congress of the United States cannot legislate Constitutionally constituted powers. But it can legislate within its jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is limited and delineated at Article I, section 8, clause 17, and Article IV, section 3, clause 2.

The legislative Tribunal created in September of 1789 was simply named the Supreme Court, and is a creation of the Congress of the United States. This fact was proved back in 1937, when the wheeler new dealer, Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to offer a Legislative Bill to the Congress of the United States to make changes to it’s administrative tribunal.

All legislative tribunals answer first to the Congress of the United States, which creates administrative rules and regulations, and ordinances which are then adjudicated within it’s own system, designed JUST FOR US.

The system of District Courts of the United States found outside the Federal District and it’s possessions, and territories are private operations open under contract to |interested parties. You must Volunteer to enter that private corporate court’s forum found within the exterior boundaries of a State party to the Constitution of the United States for the United States of America.

There are only two branches of Government currently operating on the shores of the Potomac since March 4, of 1789. The supreme court created in Article III, section I, has not held, nor has ever held a session. (Pay close attention; what he just said is that there has NEVER been a separation of powers "within" the United States, under the Constitution. - David)

The Law stated in Article III, section 2, is the Common law, which was adjudicated after the indictment was delivered by the Grand Jury, by a Petite Jury of Twelve. The Chief Magistrate was responsible for calling the assembly of the Grand Jury upon Petition by a damaged party. Within the Counties, the chief magistrate is better known as the Sheriff, who in merry old England was the Officer of the Shire, generally upon appointment by the King.

Equity is contract law, better known as the law merchant.

The President, the Chief Magistrate, has been empowered to appoint Judges to this Article III, section I supreme Court, but none have ever appointed same. (Article II, section 2, clause 2.)

And then (Not by me, but it is very lucid. - David) an answer:

When the federal government was established, it was for the District of Columbia only, as we had no possessions or other property at that time, but did anticipate territories, over which the Congress had absolute power. The District was equal to a city, county, and state of the then 13 states of the colony. To assume that this governing body could bring its municipal laws onto the confederate states is folly, but they have done just that through deceit and fraud.

I agree with Inhabitant. The sheriff of the county is the law, the people are its judges, and the county commissions are the supreme Courts. I intend to fully pursue this course by a case I have going in Alabama, and if it fails then I will know for sure it is all lost. The state acts only in the capacity as does the federal government in its limited capacity and jurisdiction. The county is the ONLY political subdivision where a person can get a jury of his "peers." Ray Earnest (This is very true, but... and I have seen this declared from the "bench" in federal court: ‘This will not be allowed! This is why we fought the Civil War!’ And the judge was referring to federal jurisdiction, and understood exactly what he was referring to, I assure you. - David)

?The clear impact of this system is how those in charge slowly corrupt the system to support their absolute seizure of power, gradually making inroads into even the little relief the common man could expect. Absolute power corrupts; the possibility of absolute power corrupts absolutely.

?And the following is a good example of how worried those at the top are getting about all of the Truth now spreading across America, and it also explains why Y2K is a sure-to-occur event. Do not be fooled by the words; this is a direct appeal for censorship of the Internet.

Arrogance Speaks for Its Self: Tom Brokaw NBC News - Anchor Direct Quote

"I believe strongly that the Internet works best when there are gatekeepers ... people making determinations and judgments about what information is relevant and factual and useful." Katherine Graham Washington Post In a Speech to CIA Officials

"We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows." Full Page Ad The New York Times

?In conjunction with this attitude, of course, you must have complete control of education. If you are a Christian, if you think that God exists, if you are committed to learning more about you and God, then you can not submit your children to public education. The two are completely incompatible.

Liberty-and-Justice@mailbox.by.net

If you don't want to be taken for an unflinchingly incisive whirlwind tour of the roots of our societal problems, just delete this message.

Otherwise: you will be glad you read these -- especially if you're perplexed about the decline of our educational system. Trust me (see warning, however). Although they contain a few typos and a couple of points here and there which (barely) miss the mark, of all the modern commentary I've read -- and that's a good chunk -- these come closer to Francis Schaeffer's example-oriented distillations than any other that I recall. A cultural Rosetta Stone for the current societal state. In short, this is the kind of stuff I want to write "when I grow up".

Warning: you may (should) be disturbed/bothered/angered/motivated by what you read in the following texts:

http://www.zolatimes.com/V2.44/original.html

http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.6/Fascism.html

http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.9/fifth.html

http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.10/publiced.html

Jamie W. "visualize honest media" Jackson, truth addict

"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already.'" --Adolf Hitler

?Do you doubt that the same people who put Hitler in power, and the German people had nothing to do with it, they simply paid the price for their ignorance, hold the United States in thralldom?

?My thanks to a friend who found this site: Moffat Bibles for sale at:

http://www.antiquarian.com/gage-postal-books/ot15-1.html

?Please remember, and live your life accordingly; Evil does not choose you. You must choose evil. There is no right way to do the wrong thing. Please take this into careful consideration as you read the following, and choose to be a Christian. This means not letting your children be subjected to TV and advertising, as well as public education.

I just read a quote from the Number one (1) Shyster: "During this period of time, President Clinton made statements on over 130 separate occasions, such as the following: "For the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, there is not a single solitary nuclear missile pointed at an American child tonight. Not one. Not a single one. Translated to the English, it is a true statement. There are numerous missiles pointed at America and all the people. This is the way a lawyer/shyster will make a statement and you have to be aware of the meaning of "is", and every other word in the statement.

Thanks to ICE; Is there truth out there? Yes, IF you understand what is being said!

Madison Avenue has used this little "trick" in their advertisement "claims" to good effect, for a long time. Consider the claim made about a detergent and its cleaning ability. Right there on TV, in front of God and everyone, the pitch man shows the sheeple how their product will get the garment so much cleaner. They have two basins, and when washed in their "liquid detergent", the piece is much cleaner than the one that is washed "... in another well-known washday liquid." Do you know the best known washday liquid? It is water. ANY detergent should get clothes cleaner than washing in just water, wouldn't you agree?

As the psychiatrist said as he passed the doctor in the vestibule, who had greeted him with, "Good morning", "Now I wonder what he really meant by that?"

Quite a lot to ponder ... especially about the "legal system". ICE

CONSIDER THE BATTLES YOU UNDERTAKE by James Montgomery

I don't know how many ways I can say this, but it does not matter what you file, or where you file it, if via the police power, or war power the government can bring you into their jurisdiction, the court will render a judgement and carry it out with it's police powers. It depends on your case, your visibility, your local law enforcement officers, the district attorneys office and finally the judge, if any thing will be done, or be carried out. If you have a police department, a D.A.'s office or a judge that can be bluffed, or they are not interested in pursuing the case, because of possible public enlightenment, or public scrutiny, you will think you have discovered the silver bullet and hit the patriot trail. Move the same exact case to another State, use the same arguments, against a system with no toleration for patriot arguments and you will be hit hard.

That's why I am so amazed at patriots around the country that say, oh "I have the silver bullet", and start selling it to others. Other patriots use it in a different jurisdiction and they go to jail, or lose their shirt; or they may win, it just depends, and not on the law, that is the problem. The super patriot says well you did not use it right. NO NO NO, every jurisdiction is different. Why? Because you are dealing with public policy, not the law. You are made to learn and argue public policy, their law and procedure. However, if your case is challenging the public policy you can forget it. Public policy, as a result of an earlier Conquest, overrules the law that they have allowed the public to presume exists, as in the system of government we now have. You can be correct and the best litigator that ever walked into a courtroom, but if you are challenging public policy you will lose, sooner or later when it counts the most. As I said above, if the loss were due to the law, or a procedure, I would say, you know your enemy, do battle. But most are fighting a battle they can never win because they don't know the enemy they are fighting. They are using a law that does not exist, and trying to force the courts with the police and war powers behind them to use a law they have already defeated. You say how can the judge do that if your argument is correct, your paperwork is correct and your procedure is perfect?

The law you are trying to use can be turned any way the judge wants, either by using metaphors, made up procedure, to do otherwise could weaken the Conqueror’s law, and power to tax. Don't take me wrong, any win is a good win, any way you can win, but you better understand the beast you are up against, and the harsh law of Admiralty, that governs the Conquered. If you are visible and you are enough of a threat, they will risk the public becoming aware of the fact the law is not adhered to, or that Constitutional rights do not exist, when they come into conflict with the public policy, the status quo. That is why a lawyer will have more success in a court room, not because he is smarter, or knows the procedure better, but because he will not threaten the court decorum; meaning, bring a case that threatens a judge personally, or the public policy he has sworn by oath to defend and protect. A patriot enters the judge's court, not licensed by his fraternity (ABA) and makes known his/her feelings of nothing but contempt for the governments system the judge represents and has sworn to protect. The patriot makes this abundantly clear in his paperwork and argument, challenging the public policy, or threatening the judge with a Title 42 law suit if he violates legal procedure, etc. Which the judge has to do not to expose the Conquest, or violate his oath, via the 14th Amendment, not to help the enemy in any way, or face expulsion.

At the same time the judge must dispose of you, or your case no matter the process, because he knows he will be protected for his loyalty to the system, that gave him his power. Your being there, demanding a lawful remedy from a law that has been conquered, proves you are mentally challenged and a threat to the public policy these judges make their living at. Why do you think they will not allow, or continue to allow, in lenient jurisdictions, patriots to change, or challenge the public policy. Its not going to happen, not for long anyway, you may win 20 cases in a jurisdiction, and really have a following, and then the decision is made that you will no longer be permitted to win on any issue, because you have become a threat to their public policy.

The possibility of the public becoming aware of the Conquest, or possible collateral damage to the court denying what appears to be a reasonable lawful remedy to you, is superseded and subordinate to the Conquerors public policy. The judge has a great deal to work with, so as to never draw attention to the truth, this ammo is supplied by you, remember Mercier used the example that if you have a plane with 12 engines and these engines are the social contracts connecting you to their jurisdiction, and you remove 11, the plane will still fly.

The only way you could break all the contracts is to die. Lets say hypothetically, you did break all the contracts and remained above ground, you still have to get past public policy and the Conquest. This is an issue Mercier was not aware of, or for what ever reason did not deal with, and Conquest by it's own nature trumps any argument you can come up with. The only way to remove, or combat conquest is by an organized belligerent at war with the Conqueror, and as far as the American people are concerned, that ain't going to happen. (Unless the Conqueror brings the warfare to their door, which is what will happen. - David)

So regardless of what paper you may file, it is meaningless under our present situation, not that it is not valid under the law, as you were lead to believe existed, not that your convictions, or mine are wrong. As a former soldier and I hope an intelligent man, I know suicide is foolish and a sin, and that you must pick and choose your battles, not be drawn into a battle out of pride, or arrogance, that cannot be won.

Does this mean you do not try, or just lay down? No, of course not, that decision is up to the individual and the assessment you have made, with the facts, as to the possibility of your success. Count the costs, the area you live in, the case you find yourself fighting. I recommend that before anyone put their butts on the line, you make sure you know what you are doing, and that you know the facts as seen by both sides. Then read the book, "The Art Of War", if after this and your assessment you come to the conclusion nothing will be gained, not even public awareness by your fight in their arena, I suggest you find another way to fight, or pick a better battle. I have come to this knowledge on my own, and have done my own research, in the trenches so to speak. I have discovered factual information, that caused me to rethink the remedies available to me, I verified the information to my satisfaction, that very few people agree with. I can't help that.

THE SPIRITUAL SIDE, TO THE BATTLES WE FIGHT

I have discovered that the solution is not though our wit, learning mans law is necessary in knowing your enemy, but relying and learning God's Law is your real source of being an overcomer. Being mindful of the events going on in the World via God Almighty's Word and being ready to move, or act as warranted, by the leading of God Almighty is where you will win or lose. To fight a battle without being in the will of God Almighty is foolishness and folly. Why? You fight the battle and God Almighty and God Almighty empowers you for any battle, you cannot lose. God Almighty and one man are a MAJORITY. If you lost, you fought alone! There are many examples in God Almighty's Word where one man overcame the whole government coming against him. However, God Almighty was always the power behind the man, the battle to be fought was the will of God Almighty. Ever heard of righteously wrong? You can think you are doing the right thing, because it is moral or lawful. However, if God Almighty did not send you, you fight alone. That's dangerous. Take a lesson from what God Almighty showed Joshua, Joshua saw a man standing with a sword drawn.

Joshua, perceived that the man might be against him, the man was an angel. Joshua asked the angel are you for us (Israel) or against us. Keep in mind this is Joshua, he knows he is a man of God and lead by God Almighty. The Angel said Nay, I am the Captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. Meaning, I don't fight your battles, but fight for the Lord under His direction, for His battles are your battles. If Joshua was fighting for himself, the angel was not for him, but if Joshua a servant of the Lord was fighting the Lords battles he would have the angels support, because the angel was captain of the host, a warrior for the Lord. Joshua, temporally forgot, by being caught up in the battle and his position, when the angel reminded Joshua of this, he fell to the ground in full submission to the Lord and under direction of the Lord he lead Israel to destroy Jericho.

Also, if you fight a battle without being lead to do so by God Almighty, you risk fighting against the Lord, for the Lord's Word must be fulfilled. Suppose the battle you fight was being allowed to take place to fulfill the Lord's Word, unknown and unseen by you. To do so you place yourself in opposition to God Almighty, even though you may have good intentions and be fighting what would be defined as a moral or lawful cause. All I am saying is make sure of the battles you fight, there can be more at stake than you are able to see. Not only in the natural, as I stated in the beginning, but also the spiritual, which is more important, but often never considered. James Montgomery

?This is a very well written piece. However, I do deplore his use of the word Al-mighty (not-mighty). No one can know everything. But he does say exactly what I have said; you can not defeat that which is, or change that which is to come. You can save individuals, which is what is important anyway.

?Simply put, they have the guns, the police (power), the prisons, the banks, unlimited credit to fight you with, and the will to use everything necessary to maintain their power. Without God on your side, you stand no chance. Back when I was fighting has hard as I could, I began to recognize a couple of failures on my part. My belligerent attitude eliminated any chance of love for my enemy, and I needed to look at this in a different light if I was to accomplish anything. What I was accomplishing was simply making a target of myself. Not very productive, and actually counter productive within myself. I was the one starting to be consumed by hatred. This is not a good attitude for peace of mind or communion with God.

?There had to be another answer. Be ye separate? How can you be separate when you enter voluntarily into their court system, where you are told not to go in Scripture!? Most of the people I know who are still engaged in fighting, and that is quite a few, are interested in the economic aspects of the system as much as anything. In other words, they still want to be a part of the system (mostly by, as pointed out above, selling the so-called secrets of the ‘system’), but under their own terms and conditions. I do not believe that is going to happen! You can be separate, and the judges care not a whit about you as long as you are not contracted into ‘their system’ or attacking Public Policy.

?This was the path I started on that led me to where I am today, doing what I do today. God Bless all those who share with me, please.

THE MAJOR QUESTION: How does the King own everything he owed before the "war" and yet in the Definitive Treaty he acknowledges sovereignty of the several states?

ANSWER: No problem really. The Treaty allowed the States to be self-governing. It did not GIVE them property. In fact, the treaty SPECIFICALLY said that everything belonging to the King BEFORE the misunderstanding STILL belonged to the King.

It said that the States COULD NOT impair the obligations of contracts. And it required this language in the Constitution. So the States previously had contracts to pay tribute to the King. Those contracts were still in effect.

And we owed the King (who was also at the time the KING OF FRANCE -- see the treaty!) about $170 MILLION in 1789 dollars. And those DEBTS were still in effect after the Treaty.

What about YOUR property that you work so hard to get and maintain?

Look at what you call your car title. It isn't a title. It is a Certificate of Title. The REAL Title is held by the state.

The same is true for your home. If you really OWNED it, the county couldn't take it for failure to pay the King's rent, disguised as property taxes.

IRS Liens? They don't exist. That's why what they really file is a Notice of Lien. They have the rule book and most people don't have a clue what the real rules are.

Read and study the ENTIRE treaty. We did not win a war. The King and his Nobility in America resolved a misunderstanding. And the King kept everything. And this is still what is happening today.

All of the CONTINUING OBLIGATIONS at the time of the Definitive Treaty are spelled out in it.

I have been in the trials like the ones the Informer spoke about where evidence doesn't matter, where truth is not allowed and where the case is decided before it begins. And believe me, in the Matthies case (Willful Failure to File) we tried everything feasible -- they listened to nothing. And at trial, they stopped Hank from putting on a defense. The jury was out for about long enough to elect the foreman. So much for a year's worth of research based on the mammoth efforts of dozens of tax researchers and 1500 pages of legal pleadings. (If they decide to get you, you are got! There is no law. - David)

Oh, the King thought he could still control the important stuff through his Esquires (attorneys). A small monkey wrench got thrown in when the REAL 13th Amendment was passed prohibiting titles of nobility, etc.. That one lead to the 1812 "misunderstanding" in which the King had the Library of Congress burned to eliminate the proof of passage of the 13th amendment -- even though it was PUBLISHED as part of the Constitution in many Western states for decades.

The Informer is the real expert on these issues and will, I am sure, be glad to defend any of his statements. You can write to him at BigAl123@Juno.Com. Terry

?The Treaty, of course, is the Peace Treaty ending the Revolutionary War. There are no people so enslaved as those who think they are free, and are not. However, that being said, because of the Declaration of Independence, there is a separation inherent for those who refuse to contract with the states. For proof of that, simply study the Mennonites and other who do live separate, uncontested lives with no contractual obligations as pertains to the king. This is why the real terms and conditions behind the Peace Treaty had to lied about, and why the real facts needed to be covered up. Those who ‘think’ they are free, have no reason to rebel, or to look for other ways to live than what they see going on around them.

?Within that context of understanding, the following is very important.

I have looked and can not find it, although I "believe" that more of the info can be found in the so-called "lost" books of the Bible, which are books removed from the Bible by the powers-that-be from time to time. However, that being said, it is also pretty obvious that something else was occurring at the time, simply because God does not change nature; he simply alters or, more probably, allows nature to be altered. In other words, God did not "send" rain to earth; it already existed here in some other form which His Law held in place until such time as the Law was violated in such a manner that nature was altered. It is this information, of the nature of His Law and the consequences of violating His Law which must be hid from the masses.

What Your Preacher and Politican doesn't want you to know

What is it that Gentlemen wish... What would they have... Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains (of) slavery... Or forbid it Almighty GOD... I know not what course others may take... But as for me... Give me LIBERTY or give me death. Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry gave his famous speech shortly after having witnessed a minister in Virginia being beaten for refusing to obtain a "license" from the king to preach the Word. Three days later they beat the brave GOD fearing minister to death. This man paid the ultimate price for FREEDOM, he shed his blood so that others may grasp the hope of freedom. Sounds like now. There is nothing new under the sun. We need to rise up once again and take back our FREEDOM. TRUTH IS FREEDOM!!! (Actually, there were 12 ministers who were beaten to death by the use of a cat-o’-nine tails. The actual scene could have come from a segment of any man’s worst nightmare. The whip had metal embedded in it, and Patrick Henry talked of seeing the bones of the Minister’s back exposed, and still the man would not accept a license from the King to preach the real King’s Word. Hard for me to imagine a Minister of today standing so tall and so strong. - David)

33% of the Bible deals with personal improvement. 67% of the Bible deals with government -- this is the part that the establishment intends to suppress.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOUR MINISTER GAVE A SERMON ON THE FOLLOWING SUBJECTS?:

*Personal Salvation 32% vs Godly government 68%

*historical Bible censorship

*prohibited taxes

*Israel's God-the WORD

*God's disapproving of kings

*strangers approaching the tabernacle

*strangers approaching the alter

*strangers in the land

*Sabbath blue laws

*jury trial by strangers

*prison slavery

*monopoly

*division of land

*anti-Christ priests and seminaries

*militia vs standing army

*gun ownership

*usury

*10s, 100's

*self-sufficient farm system

*land Sabbath

*reparations abolition vs radical abolition

If you have a preacher who will not preach on these subjects -- you have a state priest who is operating under another flag.

"In the last days....men shall be....traitors...more than lovers of God; Having a form of Godliness, but denying the power thereof." 2 Tim 3:1-5

The Truth about 501(c)3 Churches: Is your church one?

To keep from paying taxes churches must now comply with the following list:

1) be incorporated

2) have a recognized creed and IRS approved form of worship

3) a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government-a hierarchical government

4) IRS approved formal code of doctrine and discipline.

5) a denomination with a distinct religious history

6) ordained ministers

7) ministers educated in state accredited colleges

8) be neutral on political issues

9) have tax exempt status issued by the IRS

10) pay a tax to the IRS for tax-exemption status

11) be engaged in activities furthering exclusively public purposes

13) cannot bar its services to the public

14) The pastor must answer to the IRS as the daily activities of the church.

15) the IRS must be privy to all financial transactions including sources, donors,

expenditures, and if cash is used the leadership will likely be suspect of money laundering.

16) books and records available to the IRS at all times.

17) The pastor must inform the IRS of the names of all donors.

18) Gifts to missionaries and evangelists over $600.00 Requires form 1099.

19) May use only IRS approved methods of fundraising.

20) The pastor will be called to account by the IRS over any stand taken against the tax

system, (501(c)3 requires the church to support, which is why ministers always say to pay

one's taxes.

21) Must submit names of all church workers; pastors, teachers, clerks, counselors,

educational directors, office help, associates, and maintenance personnel.

22) Must give unlimited submission to civil magistrates pertaining to all laws-federal,

state, and local-including public policy.

23) Must advocate and promote racial integration, and not oppose racial integration.

24) Must not publicly oppose licensing of church ministries.

25) May not engage in political activities opposing pornography.

26) May not support legislation saying that children belong to parents not the state.

27) May not form a Political Action Committee nor actively support legislation opposing

lotteries and gambling activities.

28) May not advocate support of the US or state constitutions as the supreme law of the

land.(public policy takes precedence).

29) May not actively participate in opposing the public school system.

30) May not publicly declare that the church is to obey God rather than the government.

From Hoskins Report 6/98 POB 997 Lynchburg, VA 24505 (Hoskins has a number of very good books he has written. I highly recommend the ‘Wolf and the Sheep" to begin with. Having looked into the 501(c)3 issue myself, I can find no fault with the list presented above. - David)

Send your comments to zennia@mailcity.com

?When you support a ‘church,’ be aware of it’s status, and be aware of the intent behind the so-called teaching going on there. Are you listening to lies, under the guise of preaching? Just because a man says he is preaching the Word of God, does not necessarily make it so. Again, this comes back to personal responsibility, and to you knowing and understanding enough of what is talked about to realize the difference.

OUR FRAGILE FREEDOM

by Mr. Kim Weissman (BEVDAV@worldnet.att.net) CONGRESS ACTION:

Throughout the history of mankind, citizens having the benefit of living in freedom in their own country have been rare indeed around the world. Throughout the history of America as an independent nation, our country has stood as a beacon of freedom to the rest of the world, an example to those people living in oppression and servitude around the world, as an example of what could be. Down through the years, people suffering under the yoke of monarchy, fascism, naziism, socialism, and other forms of totalitarian slavery looked to the United States as a symbol of what could be.

Those unfortunates around the world were helpless as they were forced to send their children to government indoctrination centers, to be taught to honor the state and the party in power, and to distrust and disrespect the traditional beliefs of their own parents. In America, they saw, the schools were controlled by the parents in local communities, who decided what was taught and what values were honored. The children in America went to school close to their homes, their parents stayed involved in their learning and parental involvement was welcomed by their childrens' teachers.

Peasants living in totalitarian bondage were forced to suffer in silence as their fellows were imprisoned, or had their meager possessions confiscated, for minor infractions of the law; while the rich and powerful members of the ruling party and the nobility escaped punishment for the same or even far more serious transgressions. Those unfortunates understood that, in a totalitarian society, there were two separate standards of law, one for the ruling class, and another for the common man. They wistfully saw an America in which all were equal before the law, and when inequalities were found, they saw Americans rise up and demand equal treatment and fair play.

In those unfree societies, men were forced to earn a living in the same occupations practiced by their fathers and their grandfathers, or were assigned to jobs which the state deemed proper. Guilds and unions restricted entry into new fields of endeavor. They found themselves assigned to roles in society and admitted to occupations, not on the basis of their skills or intelligence, but rather based on their heritage, their ethnic roots, or the color of their skin. For contrast they looked to America, where even the poorest child of any background could, with nothing more than hard work, dedication, and a bit of luck, rise to become among the richest of men, in any endeavor which he chose. In the booming, growing nation of America, anyone could try his hand at anything, without seeking permission and licenses from the grudging state.

In those monarchies and totalitarian countries, the farmers rarely owned the land they farmed, the peasant lived where he was told. Tenant farmers and serfs spent their lives toiling for the benefit of the lordly landowner, being forced to turn over a full third or even a half of whatever they had produced. Their own families often went hungry because the abundant food they grew was not theirs to eat. (At the same time, other law made it a crime of death to take game to feed his family, the game belonging to the state or the king. - David) And even when a man managed to acquire a small bit of land he could truly call his own, he knew that at any time, some powerful noble or some bureaucrat from some obscure state committee could show up at his door one day, and simply take what the peasant had labored to create. And he looked to America, where even the powerful central government was forced to obey strict limits on what property could be confiscated for public or private use; where even agents of the government could not simply demand entry into a man's home on a whim; where even the governmental police authorities, who had obtained a court warrant, were forced to first ask permission of the owner to enter.

Under those totalitarian dictatorships, the people understood that they lived their whole lives at the whim of the king or the state. They understood that their rulers could create new laws or abolish old laws as they pleased, obey or ignore the laws as it suited them, and the people were forced to suffer in silence under the new dictates and obey all the rules laid down for them. They, unlike their rulers, did not have the luxury of obeying or ignoring the laws and the rules at their convenience.

Those people understood, as they looked to America, that the Americans held one supreme advantage: America had a marvelous innovation, a written Constitution. That Constitution stood as a firm and unshakable rock, protecting the liberties of those lucky people who lived under it, binding and limiting even the most powerful member of the government. That Constitution could adapt to changing circumstances, but the real glory of it was that it could be changed only when the people themselves decided that a change was needed. It was the peoples' Constitution, it was not the government's Constitution (Not true; it is the government’s Constitution - David), it was not in the power of government officials to ignore it as they saw fit, it was not in the power of the black-robed judges to change it as they deemed proper. And it was written in plain language which the people could understand, it did not require the intervention of legal specialists or judicial edict to tell the people what their Constitution meant (It most certainly is not written in plain English! Unless you know the back-ground behind it, it is impossible to understand! - David).

For the past 222 years, oppressed people around the world sacrificed everything they had to come to America for freedom. And for almost 222 years, they found the freedom and equality which they sought when they came to America. But then something changed. And today when those new immigrants look around them, what do they see?

What do we see?

If we happen to live in an area under the control of a black-robed autocrat who thinks that part of his job description involves social engineering, we see our children forced on buses for hours to attend schools miles from home. And more often than not, we see schools the primary focus of which is propaganda rather than education; which imposes course material in secret and hides the content of their teaching from parents; which often actively undermines parental authority, and family and national traditions; which invites police authorities into classrooms to encourage children to divulge family matters and which treats all children and their parents as potential criminals at the very least. We see government bureaucrats intervening into the most private and fundamental family decisions, in the arrogant belief that they, better than a child's own parents, know what is best for a child. That a parent has strongly held cultural or religious beliefs against pre-marital sex or abortion is no impediment to a government bureaucrat teaching a child about pre-marital sex, procuring birth control devices, or even facilitating abortions for the child without the parents' knowledge.

We see children deprived of the unlimited career opportunities which are one attribute of a free society, and instead we see children forced into job preparation for careers selected for them by school bureaucrats from government approved lists. Some starry-eyed bureaucrats call this School to Work, some parents call it slavery to the state. And as if career bondage wasn't sufficiently offensive to people who pretend to love liberty, many states have taken involuntary servitude even further. Many now require students at government schools to perform unpaid work in service to government designated, ideologically driven "community service" centers, as a prerequisite to graduation. As these children reach adulthood, they see their educational and career opportunities further restricted by government licenses, and by special privileges on the basis of their heritage, their ethnic roots, or the color of their skin.

We see a nation where police authorities are permitted to smash down the doors of private homes without warning, and are permitted to massacre those living in that home if they try to defend themselves against the unannounced assault. We see the highest appointed law enforcement official of the government denouncing anyone who holds strong religious beliefs as a dangerous cultist, and enforcing her bigotry with armored assault.

We see private property confiscated by government bureaucrats in a wide variety of circumstances: when some politician decides that money should be taken from one person who earned it and given to another who did not; when a bureaucrat decides that some plant, animal, or insect is more worthy of living on a parcel of land than the human who owns it; when an innocent citizen makes the mistake of passing though a government check-point while carrying an amount of cash which some government bureaucrat thinks may be used for criminal activity.

We see that America continues to maintain two separate systems of justice, and far from trying to achieve equality, we learn that certain racial groups are not to be held responsible when they violate the law, because they are deemed to be victims of society; we see that certain powerful people are even respected when they violate the law because they are deemed more important than equality before the law; and we see a nation demanding that popular leaders be exempt from the Rule of Law which is applicable to everyone else.

We see a nation which has willingly sold its children into bondage. A study by the National Taxpayers Union has determined that the average child born after 1995 will pay 56.3% of his lifetime income in taxes to all levels of government. More than half of every dollar that child earns during his entire lifetime, in forced tribute to the all-devouring state. And what do we hear from the alleged representatives of the people, whenever a reduction is proposed in that tyrannical burden of taxation? Unthinkable! The welfare state must be fed! Entitlement spending must go on and go up! (Of course, this individual does not understand that the welfare is simply from ‘credit’ and the taxes are for the king. - David) More federal programs are needed! (Of course, or you can not keep the ship of state afloat! Their must be continually new ways to pump credit into the system! - David) Those who demand to keep more of what they earn are branded as selfish by high government officials, and members of Congress act as though we should thank them for allowing us to keep any part of our money.

And we see that the peoples' Constitution no longer belongs to the people, it now belongs to the lawyers and the judges who have usurped the role of translators. These translators tell us that our Constitution says things which no one else can see, that it means things which those who wrote it have specifically said it does not mean, and that the things which our Constitution does plainly say aren't really intended and are therefore without effect. (In other words, contracts overrule the Constitution. - David) And they mandate that we believe them, because if we do not they will take away our property, our freedom, sometimes even our lives.

We pretend to care about our children, so much of what we do is allegedly for our children, our politicians never tire of posturing about their good works for the benefit of the children. Yet we are raising our children to become a nation of serfs. Despite all we claim to do for them, we are robbing them of their most prized inheritance: their Liberty.

Two centuries ago, a writer observed that great democracies tend to last only a couple of hundred years, during which time they progress through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependency; From dependency back into bondage. (Of course, the writer has no understanding of democracy, or of a Republic. - David)

We are already in the last stage, and in our self-absorption, we don't even realize it.

?The above is a wonderfully written piece, and accurately depicts what is and has happened, although it ignores the part played by the people who gave it all away for a mess-o’-pottage. It is all about contracts and permitting the government to educate your children. While she decries that, she ignores the fact that thousands of people refuse to submit their children to such abuse, and care for them at home (some estimates are as high as 750,000 children now being educated at home), or in private schools where they have some say in what is taught. The principals of freedom remain in America; they are simply ignored by those who look to the state as the answer, as this writer does. It is possible to be free. You choose the evil; it never chooses you. In this nation, in America, it is possible to be free, but in so being free, you can not be a threat to "public policy." You can repudiate the contracts, and live separate, but you can not challenge the status quo under which the privileges of the elite, and their servants, are maintained.

The Chief Magistrate has decided that the United States Army should now become a force of occupation in Yugoslavia. Well, why not. The United States has apparently occupied the States of the Union party to the Constitution since on or about the spring of 1868.

After the one year tour turns into seven years, such as the force currently resting on its heels in Tusla, Hungary, the Chief Magistrate could mobilize some of its State Police. Granted the conditions might warrant armored Humvees, but think of the battle hardened experience these fine folks will have for the coming civil chaos being planned for here in America.

The great wheeler dealer, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stated succinctly, governments never do anything without a plan.

The next time you see a revenue officer rolling down the road, notice the words State Police. Note that the Word State is defined as the District of Columbia. Note that Police are policy Administrators. So what you have are "District of Columbia Policy Administrators." What policy are they administrating? The collection of the Liable enforced upon the Rem which is paid by the Resident’s Resident Agent. Ask yourself, why are uniformed armed Policy Administrators from the District of Columbia tooling down the highways dedicated for general use in my State? Does the word "Military Occupation" ring a bell?

Could Robert Wangard be on point when he mentions such facts?

?Of course he could be correct, and he is. But, it is only by recognizing the actual facts that any type of safety is possible. Accumulation of wealth? You become a target. Attack "Public Policy?" You become a target. Contract with their jurisdiction? You become a target. Pretty simple, really.

?When you are called into their jurisdiction, you must know and understand what is happening, and why. And why you are separate, and not of this world. This is what I meant before when I mentioned that each is responsible, and that I did not want to see others free because of work performed not by them; without knowledge and understanding, freedom is simply an illusion, and without God, is worse than an illusion. It simply can not exist, for that is anarchy.

THE HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND THE MISSILE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO CHINA by Jon Christian Ryter (BAFFauthor@aol.com)

Please Reply to: BAFFauthor@hotmail.com or WordJerker@aol.com

At the conclusion of a special House Committee investigation triggered by Washington, DC based Judicial Watch president Larry Klayman's inquiry into the transfer of both dual-use technology (technology that has both military and non-military applications) and technology that is essential to the research and development of high tech weaponry to communist China, House Select Committee chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA) admitted to Bill Getz of the Washington Times that damage to the national security of the United States did occur.

"Based on unclassified information," Cox told the Washington Times reporter, "I can tell you that we have found that national security harm did occur. We have investigated those questions more thoroughly than any other part of the United States government."

"Rather quickly," Cox said, "our investigation led to even more serious problems of [Chinese] technology acquisition efforts targeted at the United States. The seriousness of these findings and their enormous significance to our national security led us to an unanimous report."

The House Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commerical Concerns With The People's Republic of China voted 9-0 to approve the top secret page report on the damage done by the missile-related technology transfer from the United States to communist China that was approved by Bill Clinton after some $600 million in campaign contributions were paid to the Democratic National Committee by the two American corporations who profited from the transfer of that technology to communist China.

The technology transfer triggered an investigation by the Pentagon and the Justice Department. And, based on the history of the Justice Dept's inept and amateurish handling of investigations of anything that touches the Clinton White House, it is likely their investigation may still be ongoing when Bill Clinton leaves office in 2001 (since it is not likely that he will be removed from office anytime soon by the Senate). The Pentagon issued its top secret report in May, 1997. The Pentagon found that missile-related technology was transferred to the communist regime in China by Hughes Electronics and Loreal Space & Communications Ltd. following a Feb. 16, 1995 rocket failure when the communist government was attempting to launch an American communications satellite.

It was an Insight on the News investigation that linked the massive campaign contribution to the technology transfer and made America aware of what became known as Chinagate.

America by and large did not seem too concerned about Chinagate in the beginning, believing as they did that the United States government would not deliberately compromise its own national security. However, they failed to realize that anyone who would callously rent out bedrooms at the White House for campaign contributions, or who would participate in communist-orchestrated, anti-American demonstrations in London against his own nation, or who would illegally avoid the military draft during a time of war, or who would commit perjury before a federal grand jury, or who would launch missile strikes against another nation to stall an impeachment inquiry until a more favorable Congress was installed three weeks later, might be so lacking in integrity that he would not hesitate to allow the transfer of America's secrets to an enemy nation in exchange for campaign contributions.

The 5-volume House Select Committee report was the result of 700 hours of interviews with 150 people, 4 of whom were granted immunity from prosecution to gain their testimony. The report, according to Cox, contains 38 specific recommendations to tighten controls over sensitive technology in the future. None of those recommendations, Klayman said, are centered on the prosecution of any of those involved in the technology transfer even though all of the parties involved knew the technology would compromise the security of the United States.

Ignoring the fact that the cow has left the proverbial barn, Rep. Dana Rohrahacher [R-CA], one of those who blew the whistle on the technology transfer, said: "We don't need a Band-Aid. We need to change the nature of our relationship with communist China." Perhaps the Congressman does not understand why that relationship exists.

If one listens to the spinmeisters in the Clinton Administration, we are fostering closer ties with that communist regime in order to help stabilize the economy of that region in order to reduce the future risk of war with China. Clinton is also quick to point out that the "era of friendship" with China began during the Nixon Administration, and that the trade guidelines that led to the technology transfer by Loreal and Hughes was actually written by the Bush Administration. What the Clinton people fail to admit is that Clinton relaxed the stringent security rules imposed by Bush and allowed the technology transfer to be completed against the advise of his own Pentagon advisors.

As we have seen during the past few days, China used that technology to create a much more accurate, much more threatening intercontinental ballistics missile that is now aimed at America. Where they could not do so in the past, the new Chinese missiles now have the capacity to strike targets well into the heartland of America.

And, if that wasn't bad enough, Clinton Administration-backed economic aid loans to Russia have apparently been used to improve its MIG-29s--at least those parts of the loans that were not pocketed by the Russian oligarchs. Russia now boasts of having a military aircraft more superior to anything the American military can launch against it. Even more foreboding is the fact that Russia, which has abused its credit standing, will find securing loans more difficult in the future will now likely be forced to sell both nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technology to China and the Mideast in order to fund improvements to its own economy.

Russia, which has not paid its own army in almost a year, must now count on its nuclear arsenal as its first line of defense. What that means is that if Russia is threatened by an aggressor, it is very likely that its first response will be nuclear. America, on the other hand, thanks to the Kennedy-era State Department Publication #7277, has been rapidly dismantling its own nuclear arsenal, thereby placing the United States at a military disadvantage with both Russia and China, both of whom continue to build their own stockpiles.

Shortly after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, John F. Kennedy issued an explosive document that detailed the plans to disarm all of the nations of the world--beginning with the United States. Kennedy was convinced by the authors of the plan--Secretary of State Dean Rusk and presidential advisors Robert Lovett and John McCoy. All three of these men were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. McCoy would be appointed to head the U.S. Arms Control Agency, a United Nations initiative, the following year.

What is most shocking about Publication #7277 is that although it has never been enacted by Congress, every president since Kennedy (except Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan) have enforced it as though it was the law of the land. (Coincidentally, only Ford and Reagan have been targets of an assassin's bullet since Kennedy.)

To understand what might well be the "secret" motive behind the transfer of technology to China one needs to examine the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the reasons why the United States would interfere with the lawful governments of neighboring nations and work towards their overthrow resulting, in every instance, in the establishment of a communist regime in those countries.

First, Kennedy was not supposed to "see" missile sites in the aerial photos the Pentagon presented him and his advisors during the second week of October, 1962. His Council on Foreign Relations advisors did everything they could convince him they were not there. Robert F. Kennedy, in his book Thirteen Days in October, stressed this point. They convinced him. And, as he found out later, his brother didn't see the missiles either. While most conspiracy buffs believe Kennedy's CFR advisors tried to convince him the missiles WERE there, the opposite, according to Bobby Kennedy's book, was true. The CFR advisors didn't want Kennedy to see missiles because they didn't want Kennedy to act. Frankly, the missile silos were not supposed to be discovered until they were installed and operational.

Why? To create a real, close-to-home threat of nuclear war to intimidate the American people.

Why? Because the utopians who wanted to create a socialist world government were ready to begin implementing their plans. But, the utopians knew one important characteristic about Americans. America was the most secure nation in the world. It was a continent wide and half a continent deep. Its borders, both north and south, are secure with friendly neighbors. American soil is unscarred by war. The winds of war have not reached gale force in America for almost 100 years, since the American Civil War. The threat of war that faces the nations of Europe and Asia are too far removed from America for Americans to willingly surrender their sovereignty to the United Nations in exchange for global peace.

They knew Americans would have to feel a very real threat to their national security before they would ever contemplate such drastic concessions to a UN-instigated world government. The threat of nuclear war, only 90 miles from the coast of Florida would plant the seed. In the minds of the globalists, it might someday be necessary to launch a nuclear strike against Tallahassee, Tampa or Miami before America would be willing to make such a concession, but with armed missiles within striking distance, they could afford to wait.

However, the plan failed because Kennedy acted. After a 13-day stand-off with Kennedy, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev blinked. Khrushchev removed the missiles. For his action in the Cuban Missile Crisis, John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. For his role in the fiasco, Khrushchev was stripped of his power (By David Rockefeller. - David) but was allowed to spend his remaining days in obscurity. His memoirs were published in the West shortly before his death in 1971.

Although the face of the world has changed and the smile of optimism has replaced the cold war scowl, the Cold War status quo remains intact. America remains an impenetrable island fortress in a global sea of economic and social hostility. And, although America's leaders have done much to weaken it both economically and militarily, the United States remains the most powerful nation on earth. It remains such not because of its leadership, but because of the American people themselves.

Today, the people of the United States remain the sole threat to global government. For global government to be achieved in the immediate future, two things must happen. First, the American people must be disarmed. This is one of the tenets of Publication #7277. During the April, 1997 UN Crime Commission conference in Vienna, Austria, the UN voted on Resolution 19 which authorized UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to structure a Global Gun Ban Treaty and send it to all the UN member states for ratification. That treaty should have appeared in the U.S. Senate sometime last fall. England responded to it in July. British Prime Minister Tony Blair pushed through a total ban on firearms in England by a vote of 384 to 181--a strict party line vote that forever eliminated the right of British subjects to own firearms.

Shortly after Resolution 19 was passed, Australia, India and Canada passed bills that eliminated the rights of their citizens to possess firearms. Today, the United States is the only industrialized nation whose citizens retain an unbridled right to buy and possess firearms. The abrogation of that right is the most imperative item on the agenda of the New World Order since they know American citizens will not willingly surrender their sovereignty to a world government without a fight.

It is for that reason that the Clinton Administration has launched an all out war on firearms. According to a 1993 speech made by Attorney General Janet Reno, the Clinton Administration will regulate guns out of existence in America before Clinton leaves office. A source in Reno's Justice Department told this writer almost 3 months ago that, by hook or crook, the Clinton Administration will accomplish the abrogation of the 2nd Amendment by June, 1999. Once that right is abolished, and firearms are outlawed in America, national sovereignty will fall. Some Americans will, surprisingly, welcome it; others will resist.

In August, 1992, former Citicorp Chairman Walter Wriston's book The Twilight of Sovereignty was published. In it, Wriston declared: "...a truly global economy will require...compromise of national sovereignty... [t]here is no escaping the system." And, Wriston, one of the architect's of the New World Order, should know.

Global government is the only sustainable promise of the 21st century. It will come at the expense of the national sovereignty of the United States as a result of very real threats of a nuclear confrontation with China and the former Soviet system, abetted by regional threats from the terrorist States in the Mideast and Africa. America, disarmed and unable to protect itself from its own central government, will watch in dismay as the American system is exported, factory by factory, to the emerging nations with a sufficient amount of "human capital" to satisfy the "profit" needs of the transnational corporations as the world enters a new "era of prosperity" during the first decade of the 21st century.

Jon Christian Ryter, author The Baffled Christian's Handbook

Whatever Happened To America? (soon to be released)

?Again, a very well written piece, and true. The only parts missing is the explanation that Communism has always been nothing but a front for the international bankers, and that Communist China is today the biggest exporter of drugs in the world, most of which move through the pipe lines established by the British in years past. But then, no story shows the whole picture. This one, however, you can take to the bank, which belongs to those who are going to do their utmost to destroy the people of America. Does this make Y2K and preparedness more realistic for you?

?There is one more aspect of what Clinton is doing that everyone should be aware of; he is in the process of completely using up most of the weapons left to America, and, by and large, their are no new weapons on order to fill the arsenal with. Cruise missiles are a very good example of what I mean.

BE PREPARED!! FOOD, CLOTHING AND "OTHER" SUPPLIES

by Dot Bibee (DotHB@aol.com)

I received this message this morning from Brother Dan Catlin (elcm@southwind.net).

"Greetings, Say have you heard out of the Joseph project? I have had a couple of people wondering how back logged they are. It took three months to get mine. It was worth the wait. I could not get their page to come up on the net? Shalom, Bro. Dan... Keep up the good work!"

FOOD SOURCES

Yes, Brother Dan, I have my Joseph Projects shipment, too....and it is a very good buy. I could not get their web page to come up either - but I do have their phone numbers if anyone wishes to call them: Call the Joseph Project Dehydrated Foods at (806) 792-3848 and ask for Tom or Steve Donaldson. If they answer a carpet company, you have the right number. The Joseph Project is a ministry in Lubbock, Texas, and the carpet company is just another part of their ministry. The last time I talked to Steve he said that they now have a "secure" supplier and can now ship very fast. Back about 4 months ago, they were having trouble with their suppliers. Now they do not. Their food is very reasonably priced and A LOT OF FOOD can be stored in a very small place. ORDER NOW.

Also every time you go to the grocery store, stock up on some very important food items that you use a lot OR foods that do not need to be cooked for survival. I learned to "collect" a lot of these things running from all of the hurricanes that came through Pensacola, Florida, and are really handy when the power is off due to storms or "whatever". Buy extra peanut butter and jelly, crackers, fruit juices - and bottled water. For other storable foods for long-term survival always pick up extra instant or flaked potatoes, rice, beans, cooking oil, canned meats (including salmon), powdered and canned milk, flour, meal, masa, sugar, and as much canned foods as you have room to store (just remember use - first in - first out)...

LONG-TERM survival will also depend on your ability to grow some of your own food. Order your non-hybrid seeds (seeds that you can save and grow next year's crop) from The Ark Institute from Geri Guidetti (arkinst@concentric.net) or write to The Ark Institute, P. O. Box 142, Oxford, Ohio 45056. She has carefully prepared a SURVIVAL PACKET of seeds - so ask about this FIRST.

What's Happening to the World's Food Supply? You NEED to Know! Read archived and current editions of Geri Guidetti's free newsletter, The Grain and Food Supply Updates, at http://www.arkinstitute.com (Excellent source! - David)

Don't forget to prepare for alternative methods of cooking your food on a LONG-TERM basis such as wood stoves. These are good for keeping you warm as well. Propane is good, but unless the stove is a heater, too.....you will have to have another source of heat.

CLOTHING (Online go to www.chiarmy.com/index.html)

Yes, you can go online and buy these kinds of supplies, but there is Army and Navy surplus store in YOUR OWN CITY or nearby city and are very good sources for good clothing, especially for men. For women and children - check out Salvation Army (Ever wonder why the symbol for the Salvation Army is a Red Shield [Rotheshields]? - David), Good Will, etc. since this clothing is still good - AND they are depending on people with MONEY buying these so that they can help the people who cannot buy the clothing. Don't forget to buy enough EXTRA shoes and eyewear. Buy children's clothes and SHOES in increments of every two years - so that you will be able to provide clothing for them for at least 10 years. Who knows? Better to be prepared. And don't forget children's toys, books and writing materials. A Bible (KJV) should also be in your survival pack.

AMMUNITION AND GUNS

I don't know why I would have to tell you where to go ammunition and guns - and YOU do not need an ONLINE source for this. You can buy most of what you need from Pawn Shops, as well as Gun Stores, Walmart, KMart - and a LOT of other places. Just buy ENOUGH to last you for awhile (The single most important weapon you could purchase is a .22 bolt action rifle, with several bricks of .22 ammo. - David). Don't forget about caches because CONFISCATION is surely going to happen (She is right about this; they have armed the street gangs with automatic or semi-automatic weapons, mostly from China, in nearly every major city, and they have been training them in how to use the guns. Be prepared. - David). These caches could probably be found - but you could make it "difficult" for them. Buy enough AMMUNITION that would be enough for "protection" for your family against marauding gangs who will probably be very well-armed.... Don't be afraid to buy what you need. Our enemy isn't.

MEDICINE

If YOU or any of your family now are taking prescription medicines or even depending on over-the-counter medicines to survive NOW, you must PREPARE for a time when you may not be able to run to your drug store to get a prescription filled or get over-the-counter medications. YOU DO KNOW that you will NOT be able to STOCK UP on Prescription medicines. You can stock up NOW on aspirin, first aid supplies for cuts, burns, etc., peroxide, alcohol, Vaporub etc. For your other medicines, call Warner Herb Company (1-800-998-2131). Before you call him make a LIST of the prescription drugs you take now - the name on your bottle, the strength of it, etc. John Warner can tell you how to be able to get off of these prescription medicines (yes, any of them) because there are some that you cannot stop taking cold turkey. He can also then be able to better recommend the herbal medicines for you to take. He sells 100% pure herbs - so his medicines are NOT like the herbs that you see on Walmart or other drug stores' shelves. Go to his web page at http://wwwcrossville-chronicle.com/warner/warner.htm and see what he has to offer. For those in good health and not taking prescriptions now would be interested, too, because he also has herbs to help you maintain your health. You can also LEARN how to tend the sick the way that your ancestors did - A LOST ART.... using water therapy, poultices, etc. The best book to read is "Back to Eden" - available in ANY bookstore.

OTHER SUPPLIES:

Don't forget to make your lists. Make a list for everything that you use and need now. Your survival list will be MUCH shorter, but make that list NOW - of what you cannot possible LIVE without. Leave out all LUXURY items - TV, VCR's, etc., but don't leave out RADIOS - especially Short Wave and Communications. The One-Meter or Two-Meter Radios are available at Radio Shack - and can keep you in touch with anyone else who has a radio..so make sure your friends and family are also hooked up. WOMEN need to think especially of their PRODUCTS so don't allow a MAN to make your list for you. AND each one of your CHILDREN should have a list - and you should TEACH them to keep their SURVIVAL box or storage place READY at all times. A good backback complete with a small tent and blankets, food, and camping stoves, etc. is a good way to store basic survival supplies for each person.

CONNECTIONS

If you do not have "connections" or close friend or family near you, DEVELOP them now - or MOVE where you can be close to people who need you and you will need them. Common sense will tell you that in hard times we should never have to survive alone.... Make your own plans for this. Do NOT depend on someone from New York to come down to Tennessee to help you. (for example). Do not depend on people on the other side of Knoxville (over the river or over the mountain) to be there to help you. Your "connections" must be with people who are in walking distance from you. So if you don't know your neighbors now - get acquainted by giving them a Y2K Survival Packet. They might not even know about Y2K. As Christians, it is our nature to help one another.... or we must might be the one who needs help. A good source for this information is http://www.independentamericans.com/index.html

IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THIS MESSAGE - please don't be bashful and let SOMEONE know what your problem is..... YOU do not want to be part of the PROBLEM - but part of the SOLUTION!!!!

?Most Survival is common sense. The parts she left out are the knife, ax, plentiful matches in a water-proof container, and toilet paper. If you do not understand civilization, start with thinking about toilet paper! Or the lack thereof...

http://www.spycounterspy.com/ Pretty interesting sites.

http://www.warroom.com/whose.html

Whose Heritage and Whose Land?

The Phyllis Schlafly Report, http://pages.map.com/bkpowell/heritageland.html

I recently revisited Independence Hall, the cradle of our republic where the Declaration of Independence was signed and the United States Constitution was written. Something new has been added since the last time I saw it: a large bronze plaque with a peculiar inscription under an unidentified insignia.

"Through the collective recognition of the community of nations expressed with the principles of the convention concerning protection of the world's cultural and natural heritage, Independence Hall has been designated a World Heritage Site and joins a select list of protected areas around the world whose outstanding natural and cultural resources form the common inheritance of all mankind."

Whew! Where did all that mumbo-jumbo come from? Obviously not from American history or our founding documents. "Common inheritance of all mankind"? No way. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both uniquely American, written by identifiable Founding Fathers on American soil at known points in time.

Independence Hall "joins a select list of protected areas around the world"? Who decided that Independence Hall should "join" anything? It is a unique American treasure. And who is protecting these "protected areas"? "Collective recognition of the community of nations"? It's obvious that all those foreign nations don't agree with our American Declaration or Constitution or the principles therein.

Since it is impossible to relive history and give the "collective" or the "community of nations" any ownership in the historic events that made Independence Hall an American shrine, we can only deduce that some international entity is asserting a vested interest in the building. Who authorized that?

After all, it would have been a nice accolade and not worthy of particular comment if the Independence Hall plaque merely said, "The United Nations honors the cradle of American freedom, the inspired words of the Declaration of Independence, and the genius of the United States Constitution that has nourished liberty in America for more than two centuries." But it didn't.

We now find that at least 20 pieces of American property have been designated as "World Heritage Sites" and so identified with markers. These include Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks, the Grand Canyon, Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello, and, believe it or not, the Statue of Liberty. All of these markings took place without any publicity, without the American people knowing what was going on.

The designation of these World Heritage Sites was authorized by the World Heritage Convention, a treaty signed by President Richard Nixon and ratified in 1973. The World Heritage Program is carried out by UNESCO, to which the United States doesn't even belong. President Ronald Reagan pulled us out of UNESCO because it was totally corrupt.

The UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program was created in 1970. The United States joined in 1974 when our State Department signed a memorandum of understanding (not a treaty) to put us in the Biosphere Program and pledge that the United States will adhere to the Biosphere conditions and limitations laid down by UNESCO. Paragraph 44 of the World Heritage Operational Guidelines states that "natural" Heritage Sites (as contrasted to "cultural") can be interchanged with "core reserves" of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program. These core protected areas are planned to be surrounded by highly regulated buffer zones, all for the sake of "biodiversity."

At a conference in Spain in 1995 that culminated in the Seville Strategy, the Biosphere Program underwent a radical change in purpose. The first goal of the Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves is to "promote biosphere reserves as a means of implementing the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity."

U.S. State Department representatives agreed to this new framework of UNESCO-designated guidelines and objectives for the Man and Biosphere Program. So, even though the United States doesn't belong to UNESCO, and even though the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Biodiversity Treaty, the United States is marching right ahead with UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program.

Starting with Yellowstone National Park in 1979, UNESCO has designated 47 Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering 50 million acres. In order to designate sites and spheres under either of these UNESCO programs, the United States must agree to manage these lands according to international dictates and objectives.

That's another way of saying that the United States has agreed to limit our sovereign power to manage our own lands any way we want in pursuit of our own national interests. The Clinton Administration's designation of Yellowstone Park as a World Heritage Site "in danger" has already been used to shut down a gold mine near (not even in) Yellowstone.

The UN/UNESCO types have made no secret of their goals. Their next step is their Wildlands Project, a plan to designate one half of the United States as "protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity."

Americans don't need or want any UN/UNESCO bureaucrats telling us how to "protect" our own land. We can jolly well handle our own protection.

?Yes, but it is only by understanding how far advanced the plans for managing the lands in America AFTER the population has been greatly reduced that a true picture of the future planned for America and her people can be seen. Are you preparing?

Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia

by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net

Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/headsup.htm and

http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html

LIARS STEAL FREEDOM

Sixty-six years ago, the president began a systematic takeover of the state governments, which ended the country’s tradition of local political independence. Federal agents effectively took most law and rulemaking controls away from state and local governments and centralized all economic and much of the criminal control under the federal government. There was, after all, a state of national emergency decree in effect.

Those not conforming were labeled political enemies and quickly arrested. Later, prison camps were constructed and filled with the country’s undesirables.

The president’s advisors put together a brilliant public relations campaign explaining the government’s actions and why a state of national emergency was necessary. And throughout the country, the people were talked into agreeing that jobs and the nation’s economy were more important than those few Constitutional rights the people would have to temporarily sacrifice.

Unexpectedly, some strange presidential decrees were issued. Suddenly, anyone suspected of maliciously criticizing the government could be arrested. Then, "special" courts to try political offenders were formed. Later, the Enabling Act was passed. Officially called the Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the government, the Enabling Act greatly violated the Constitution by allowing the president a host of new dictatorial powers.

"The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures," the president said. "The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one."

Unfortunately, many people believed him.

These powers were needed to fight unemployment and get the country back on it’s feet, the government repeated over and over again. These powers will be needed only temporarily, the people were repeatedly assured.

And again, many people believed the lies.

It’s interesting how the above scenario tracks right along with the unconstitutional antics of the Franklin D. Roosevelt presidency. Actually, though, the above is a thumbnail sketch of Hitler’s government in 1933. That many parallels between governments are amazingly close was not by accident. Both the United States and Germany felt the bite of the depression, and both government leaders used the opportunity to centralize unprecedented powers. (Of course, it helped that the same minds were behind both governments! - David)

Germany’s Chancellor no longer has these powers. After Hitler, they were rightfully stripped. The President of the United States, however, still has many of the above "emergency" powers and more. Our federal government seldom if ever relinquishes a power it acquires. That many of the war and emergency power laws and most of the regulatory agencies are unconstitutional is beside the point. The federal government likes these emergency powers over the American people and plans to keep them permanently. Therefore, still today, an American president may become an American dictator by uttering only two words: National emergency.

A few years ago, Congress added yet another emergency law. This one (42 USC 5195) created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and more or less gives it dictatorial powers over American citizens during any type of emergency. Section 2-203 defines "emergency":

"For the purposes of this Order, civil emergency means any accidental, natural, man-caused, or wartime emergency or threat thereof, which causes or may cause substantial injury or harm to the population or substantial damage to or loss of property."

In other words, something is an emergency because they say it is an emergency: ". . . any . . . or threat thereof. . ." are the operative words there. No other criteria are necessary. The rest of the words are just excess characters.

Under this law, a declared emergency gives FEMA powers to do just about anything. They can take over all communications, all medical establishments, all businesses, relocate people as necessary, send citizens to work in any place necessary and at any wage designated, pass any and all rules and regulations, control all military and civilian policing, limit travel, etc., etc. In other words, they control your body, your labor, your property, and under a related banking regulation, can even confiscate your bank account. And by the way, Congress and the civilian courts have no authority after a president declares a national emergency. The only properly descriptive word, therefore, is "dictatorship."

Under the law, only the president may declare a national emergency, and only the president may end it. Remember that when Congress again talks of martial law because of their perceived Y2K problem. Also remember that this same opportunity was allowed by Article 48 of the German Constitution in the 1930’s. Therefore, Hitler was able to suspend their constitution by presidential decree alone.

Character does count. Good leadership requires a strong personal moral code. It is important to have a president who will not lie. (How about a President who has no such power, given to him by Congress? - David) World Net Daily; www.worldnetdaily.com

?There are no bars to using the "relocation" camps that have been built, nor to taking over the nation from within the White House. None whatsoever. If you have wondered what all the fuss was about when the Marines in California were given a questionnaire asking if they would fire on Americans, perhaps you now understand. And understand the reason behind the questions as well. It is called a weeding out process, to get the armed forces down to those who will do what they are told, no questions asked.

Work: Curse of the living class, Part II 1999 Claire Wolfe

Last week, we pondered a Very Tough Question: how to make a living in a rural area. That wasn't the only tough question about work in my e-mail that day.

James Engelbracht wrote an entire herd of them, beginning with these:

Wasn't the purpose of industrialization to give people more and more time to improve themselves? Isn't the end purpose of increasing automation to give people (whose jobs are being replaced) the freedom to do something besides grub for a living?

These questions brought another to mind -- a familiar one: Where the heck is all that alleged time and when do we get some of it?

There are plenty of reasons why automation hasn't yet created mass leisure time. So far, automation creates more jobs than it eliminates. With the money from those jobs, we like to buy, buy, buy. Taxes suck away half our productivity. Regulations suck away more. We've developed a famous tendency to turn what little leisure time we have into a mad race. We feel indebted and indentured. Whine, weep. Poor us.

But we've heard all this before!! Now, let's quit bitching and see what we can do. It is, after all, our life. And if it's broke, it's up to us to fix it. First thing we need to fix is usually attitude.

When it comes to smartening up about money, jobs and value, I don't know of a better kick in the intellectual backside than the book Your Money or Your Life by Vicki Robin and the late Joe Dominguez. I could tell you a dozen things I don't like about this book. But whatever its flaws, there's just no finer resource for work-weary people who want to learn to think more dynamically about what they do "for a living," why they do it, and what impact it really has on their lives.

For instance, have you considered that all the time you spend recuperating after your day's work is a "cost" of having a job? Have you considered that some of the time and money you spend on mindless entertainment or fast food may also be a "cost" of a job that keeps you too tired to live creatively? Dominguez and Robin did, and those insights are just part of what they offer in that now-classic book.

But OK, you already know that your job sucks [the vitality out of your life], even if you didn't think of it in quite those terms. You probably even know what you'd rather do, instead. So the next step in getting from your present pits to some sort of heights is discover specific -- repeat, specific -- steps you can take toward your ideal. Never mind that they may look like the merest baby steps at first. (Trust the word of an extremely impatient person; even baby steps will get you there, far quicker than you imagine.) Step number one, in nearly all cases, is understanding your spending.

Dominguez and Robin push a method that sounds blindingly tedious, but was actually fascinating, even for a decidedly non-methodical arty type: track every dime that comes in or goes out, categorize each expenditure, then analyze what, if any, value you got from that category. Do it month after month.

Doesn't that sound like the most anal-retentive thing in the known universe? But if you try it, you might be shocked not only at how much you're spending, but what you're spending it on, and how little you value the results. Even if your analysis simply yields the conclusion, "Ack, I'm in debt up to my ears and can't get out!" believe me, you'll have gained something merely by knowing, in glorious detail, your particular form of stuckness. Personal example. When I first read Your Money, I was spending more than I was making. Nearly every bit of that spending was non-discretionary -- payments I couldn't easily have gotten rid of no matter how badly I'd wanted to. My first response was, "There's nothing I can do."

Still, I knew I had to do something, or be stuck forever. No matter how long it might take, or how hard it might be, I had to commit to action -- specific action.

Now, at this point, every expert says, "Make a plan." So I might as well also say, "Make a plan," even though, where I'm concerned, that's BS. Maybe some of you guys are good at plans, and more power to you. I'm better at impulses. So I sold off assets (discovering that I'd accumulated more stuff than I thought I had), paid off most of my debts in whomping chunks (sometimes at sacrifice to the grocery budget), then tossed so much job-work off my shoulders that ... well, I was too poor even to think about getting into any grind of unsatisfying consumption and debt. (Pretty smart, and sounds very familiar! - David)

My new neighbor, Carty, found a different path toward a "downsized life," more methodical but not much slower. During the last couple of years in his military career, he was stationed in a backwater with a pretty good certainty he'd be there until he retired. He spotted a real junker of a house (We are talking low-rent neighborhood in a low-rent state), scratched together enough cash for a down payment, fixed the house in a hurry, and sold it for enough to pay straight cash for another real junker. Once he fixed that house and sold it, he had enough to buy outright a perfectly livable little home in Hardyville -- and here he and his family sit today, mortgage free. Now he's got one more tiny junker, with which he hopes to pay off the last of his credit card and auto debt. (Been here, done this, and it works. - David)

Once you're on your way out of debt and bad spending habits, then what? Well, actually, at the same time you'll also, almost certainly simplify your life. You'll find you need less, want less and spend less while having more fun.

Then you can do the Real Thing -- quit your job, or go part time. Spend all those delicious new hours doing something you love.

Dominguez and Robin promote the idea of putting away some money, then -- when you are still far from rich -- quitting and live off a remarkably small interest income from this modest savings. For various reasons, I don't believe I'll ever do the living-on-interest bit. However, shucking off stuff and debt has enabled me to work at things I like to do, instead of things my creditors like me to do. I'm content. My solution may be different than your solution. But every solution begins with a commitment to act, then goes through specific, practical steps to get there.

And one day -- voila! -- you've got it made. Okay, it might take you five years to get to your voila! point. But if you want to be independent, the only alternative I can think of is to get rich. Nothing wrong with being rich! Except that then you'll probably have even more debt -- and the revenuers on your tail, besides. No thanks! For me, keep it simple.

For help and inspiration: The New Road Map Foundation which is part of The Simple Living Network. Useful books include: Creating Your Future: Five Steps to the Life of Your Dreams by Dave Ellis; Volu ntary Simplicity by Duane Elgin; and Getting a Life by Jacqueline Blix and David Heitmiller (stories of real people who've changed their lives after reading Your Money or Your Life).

WorldNetDaily readers may not always share the political agenda of these writers and organizations, but these sources offer lots of good ideas to be mined.

?Of course, as you realize, I do not believe that you have five years to accomplish this. However, it is possible to leave the cities, and live comfortably. I started down my path by the simple act of cutting up my credit cards and returning them (they do not belong to you, so you must return them) to the issuing company, with a note that I did not need nor had I solicited their unsecured credit. There are better ways to do that, and books which exist to explain the proper methods. I simply decided that the best way to avoid credit was to have no usable credit report. And it worked. Others, today, load credit cards up and use legal methods to crash them. I have no problem with that, because I understand what is behind the credit; nothing.

?The point is, start. Most people have no idea of what they make, or where it goes, and have no control over their lives as a result. I hope you are different, if not now, in the future.

?Let us take another look at what actually is in America.

jay rutledge wrote: Is there a transcript of the May 5 1933 convention? Or did the governor's sign a binding declaration or cession or whatever?

MEADOR CONTRIBUTION

My friend and fellow researcher Tim McCrory and I spent about five hours in the Federal Depository Library at Oklahoma State University yesterday, and we unearthed a few things that relate to this general discussion and the question above. I'll make a preliminary report here, then do more with the material as time permits.

The answer to the question above -- there should be a record of the governors' conference somewhere. In order to endorse Roosevelt in "whatever" he did, there had to be a resolution. The organization or association of governors existed for some time prior to 1933, so whatever consent they conveyed on March 4, 1933, should be a matter of record.

Tim and I spent time in what amounted to preliminary searches in several specific areas: The evolution of judicial process relating to civil and criminal affairs in Oklahoma; the origins of the Organization of States; auto licensing; and a few matters relating to the United States Code. I accumulated cites that will now enable us to get all the Social Security-related information beginning with the original act of 1935.

The Organization of States appears to have been an off-shoot of the Organization of State Legislators (legislatures?). The first Book of the States, and what appears to have been the first formal Conference of the States, was in 1935. In that particular book, there is a list of organizations such as the organization or conference of legislators which had emerged in previous years. Municipal governments, county governments, governors, legislatures, etc. By 1935, each of the organizations had offices in Chicago. Chicago seems to have been the hub of planning and activity for these entities.

The organization of legislators or legislatures was first convened nine years prior to the first edition of the Book of the States being published, so it appears that this pilot organization was established in or about 1926. It might not surprise anyone to find that a Rockefeller foundation provided original funding, and was still providing funding at least until 1935. Other "private" contributors were evidently involved. The stated objective was to shift exclusively to government funding, i.e., funding appropriated via each State legislature.

By 1937, those participating in the third Organization of the States conference were told that the various organizations and commissions established by State compacts were "governmental" entities that "filled in the gaps" between State and Federal government. Those compacts pre-dated the Congressional act of 1934 approving compacts relating criminal matters, presently classified in the United States Code at 4 U.S.C. 112. Also by 1937, proposals for various compacts or conventions relating to the Social Security Act were on the agenda -- collection, payment, unemployment benefits, etc. The Social Security Administration served as a "grant-making" agency of Federal government; each of the several States was to more or less devise its own plan for utilization. In 1937, there was a strong push for uniformity through "intergovernmental cooperative" compacts.

One of the driving forces seemed to be the alternative between "Federalism" (Federal government takeover) or "Cooperation" (State initiative via interstate and intergovernmental compacts). Thus, the current term, seemingly coined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1960's, that describes what is now a three-government system, "Cooperative Federalism". The "Corporatism" term must have been prevalent prior to this move toward interstate compact among the several States.

Volume II of the 1937 edition of the Book of the States is particularly enlightening as it contains actual conference notes and minutes, including speeches by many of the prevalent engineers behind the Cooperative Federalism (socialist-communist) takeover. The 1935 edition has a complete listing of governors and other executive officers, and heads of the legislative houses for each of the several States.

Tim did a preliminary study of "vehicle" tagging requirements. He has original legislation -- if I recall correctly, from the 1920's. The original applied only to 3 commercial classes, not private automobiles. Farm trucks and the like were specifically exempt. Through his cursory reading, he said it seems that tagging "private" automobiles was rationalized as a substitute for "personal" properly tax. Trick words again.

As I discovered via reading various State materials last weekend, criminal prosecution in Oklahoma must proceed "in the course of the common law." This was verified in our Revised Statutes of 1910 -- each of the several States will have a set of revised statutes in the last two or three decades of the last century, or early decades of this century. These serve as the benchmarks for your respective "Codes" (Codes are not law, they are merely convenient classification systems).

A curious thought struck me when going through Oklahoma's historic law: Our Revised Statutes of 1910 are contained in two volumes, each maybe 3 or 4 inches thick. As I was passing our session laws, I saw that legislation in 1979 & 1980 was contained in 3 to 4 volumes of like size for each year. In other words, legislation in any given year exceeds cumulative legislation from about 1889 through 1910.

This goes to another point made in the 1937 Book of the States: There was a declaration by participants in the Organization of States conference that legislators are farmers, doctors, etc., etc., who don't have expertise in the various areas of legislation, so due to increasing complexities of government, they needed to rely on "government professionals" who had or have developed expertise. In other words, they rationalized turning the affairs of government over to hidden planners who might have their own agenda. I noticed in the short time I had to read last night that a branch of the American Bar Association had proposed a uniform criminal code in 1930, and those who ran the conference encouraged legislatures of the several States to adopt the thing.

?I hate to break right into the middle of a paragraph like this but this is important. In Part I, near the end, I have added this piece, which many of you have not seen. Even if you have, it needs repeating here:

The following is an excerpt from an article which appeared in the Anti-Shyster October,

1991 as written by Alfred Adask regarding the 13th Amendment. This particular section

is entitled... INTERNATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION

"In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most had no 'title of nobility' of 'honor'. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's 'counsel of choice' was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquarters in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank 'Esquire' -- a 'title of nobility'.

'Esquire' was the principle title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of 'Esquire' lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an 'Esquire' behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefore, a 'title of nobility' amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government." (Now, please continue with Dan’s explanation. - David)

These "planners" generate more legislation, creating more "law", than anyone can keep up with. This is the reason "government" today invades private affairs from cradle to grave. State as well as Federal government is run by a coordinated core of "Federalism" ("ism", i.e., communism, socialism, etc.) engineers who design State, Federal and local legislation and regulations. Which brings us back to criminal prosecution "in the course of the common law".

Here in Oklahoma, criminal prosecution is by "information" filed by the district attorney. Very few indictments issue from grand juries. Yet in 1907 & in the Revised Statutes of 1910 (Oklahoma was admitted to the Union in 1907), all criminal and misdemeanor criminal prosecution save minor offenses tried in police and magistrate courts had to proceed by indictment. The law hasn't changed -- district attorneys and judges have simply taken advantage of the general ignorance of the people. An "information" is simply a government-initiated complaint that can be taken to what amounts to a probable cause hearing, then must go to a grand jury. I haven't straightened the whole business out, but that seems to be the nature and limit of the thing.

The "one form of civil action" fraud at the State level seems to date to the latter 19th Century after the Civil War. The legislature of the Territory of Oklahoma adopted this merging from Kansas; Kansas seems to have perverted the "due process in the course of the common law" vs. "due process in the course of the civil law" for civil actions in about 1893. This was carried forward by the legislature for the State of Oklahoma.

In the Oklahoma organic act, the territory was established as a common law territory, which is specified in the Ordinance of 1787 for government of the Northwest Territory, that ordinance extended to each territory up to the time Spain ceded the Philippines and Puerto Rico (1898). And per the Constitution of the United States, the Territory of Oklahoma and the State of Oklahoma, successively, are limited to "law and equity" (so in our current Constitution). Law proceeds in the course of the common law; equity, or chancery, proceeds in the course of the civil law. One is repugnant to the other. Consequently, the act of the legislature of the Territory of Oklahoma, and subsequently the act of the legislature of the State of Oklahoma, as well as the legislature of the State of Kansas, was repugnant to constitutional mandate -- the whole "one form of action" business is therefore void and of no lawful effect. The same is true for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which are applicable only in territorial courts, anyway.

Grasping the "3-government" system explains the "non-constitutional" concept employed to describe current governmental operations.

It is of note that each of the "uniform acts" generated through the Organization of States, etc., employs definitions which are clearly limited to "territory of the United States". In one of the speeches at the 1937 conference, this concept was clearly conveyed when the speaker alleged that each of the several States is a component of Federal government. Is this true? Hardly. In our system, State and Federal governments serve as the antipodes of power, i.e., opposite ends. More on these subjects as time permits. /s/ Dan Meador

?Again, the principals revealed here show what I had mentioned above; men carefully arranging things to their own supposed benefit. When you look at what happens in Washington, DC, and you wonder how such men could be so stupid as to not see what is clear before your eyes, you mistake their intent. They see, every bit as clearly as you do, it simply means something entirely different to them, and they intend something entirely different than what you think, or hope, they do. That is not to say that what they intend is an accident; it is carefully thought out, discussed behind closed doors, and arranged to work in exactly the manner they wish. Not to benefit you; to benefit them, and their real bosses.

?The other point of interest involves who is guilty. I told you to begin with that the men in Washington, DC, were not violating the Constitution. It is not "them" who have created the problem; the problems stem from us, and with our people at the state level. Of course, the real problems are with the BAR and the lawyers and judges, but then, we suspected that from the very beginning.

A friend from California just forwarded what I believe may be the most comprehensive and usable legal research resource on the Net. It needs to go in everyone's resource bag as even those who aren't interested in legal research occasionally have need to know something about law.

The site is http://www.lawguru.com/multisearch/multisearch.html

While everything we need isn't available from this site, it appears that this is the best organized, most complete resource to date.

Frog Farmer [SMTP:frogfrmr@rarebird.net] wrote:

This brings up a sad but interesting question. If we choose to never again respond to anything addressed to JOHN DOE, will we ever again sit on a jury? Will we ever again exercise our right of jury nullification?

I guess you'll just have to wait and sit on a real jury in a real court with real jurisdiction over real live human beings, if ever again such a thing exists in America, and give up hoping that you'll be given the opportunity to pretend that you are a "corporation sole" judging juristic persons in a statutory court.

I had the opportunity just this past summer and being the ONLY person to find the defendant innocent, hung the jury thus causing a mistrial. I did not vote just to screw with the system, I honestly thought the county prosecutor had no business bringing this man to court. I judge accordingly--according to my conscience. Yet I know full well that I attended this jury as JOHN DOE, not as John Doe. This all happened before I started studying the subject of corporate fictions.

So, you made an error, and were without culpability. To do the same again would be fraud, wouldn't it? Is it okay to commit fraud in the fight against fraud? I lied to catch a liar, in a statutory court. If I do the crime, I'm prepared to do the time, but there in those courts it's generally understood that you lie as part of the game, isn't it? That's what the oath is all about, to let you know that the "No Lying (for YOU only)" Sign is turned ON. How about fighting a war to end all war?

How will I respond to any subsequent calls for jury "duty." I don't know. Comments?

You didn't get any call to jury duty. You committed a felony by opening somebody else's mail, and you weren't "caught" and nobody had it in their mind to advance their career by "catching you". You were lucky that time! Quit opening mail addressed to others, unless you obtain a power of attorney as their fiduciary. But that's what you've been saying you want to get away from. Luckily, now you know how to spell your own name, after how many years?? (Nuthin' personal, you understand!)

WOODSMAN RESPONSE I understand, er, comprehend.

Okay, I've learned my lesson. Sounds like I could have gotten into a lot of trouble. I realize I can't straddle the fence.

Though I now realize I impersonated JOHN DOE while sitting in a jury, and though I didn't get caught, I still nonetheless enjoyed making sure a fellow human was not railroaded by the "state." Hey, I think I somewhat have a feel for why spies get such a kick out of being a spy! Woodsman

MEADOR COMMENT

Here is the crux of difficulty relative to the broad system -- is justice for one or all?

My research goes to "public servants" of various stripes, and particularly, there is a dialogue with State, county, and community leaders. I don't normally approach them with a, "You bums," attitude, but more, "What are we going to do to correct these problems?"

It's called good faith -- "I think you folks have been as duped as I was..."

I had a conversation with the Federal case manager at the halfway house where I spent two months. Everyone who goes to halfway houses gets put in some kind of class, usually several classes, and the classes are classified as "rehabilitation" programs. Just another way to fleece the flock -- they bill BOP, and that's figured into incarceration expense, which gubberment pays. I didn't want to mess with the one I was assigned to, but the lady insisted. I asked, "Is there a court order requiring me to attend anything having to do with psychological evaluation, rehabilitation, or anything similar?"

"Well, no, but everyone is required to have some program..."

Is that right? Who required it? Congress? The court?"

We were stalemated. The obvious "authority" behind the scheme is the company that owns and operates any given halfway house.

"Which power are they usurping," I asked, "God's, Congress', or the court's?"

The nice lady decided my work was my program.

The next time we had a session, I posed a question: "Do you think we should obey the law?"

"Well, yes," she said.

"Fine, if I present what I believe the law is, do you have an obligation to investigate, even if what I share is contrary to what you assume the law is?"

"I suppose."

"OK, suppose we engage this exercise, and between us, we determine what the law is. If we've engaged the effort in good faith, and both agree that we should comply with the law, are we adversaries?"

"No," she said.

"You would agree that we're only adversaries if one or the other is determined to go on doing what he or she is doing regardless of what the law is?"

"Yes, I agree with that," she said.

"If you agree, we can pursue the truth in good faith, can't we, and if one or the other of us is wrong, we can resolve any difference we have by the one who is wrong changing his or her actions to comply with the law. Do you agree with that?"

How can she not agree? Of course, the lady isn't a banker, and she isn't a judge, but it's my opinion that we have to establish the same kind of basis of understanding even with bankers and judges if we are going to correct the system without a general call to arms.

One of the things Tim McCrory and I did while we were at the OSU Federal depository library recently was go back to Oklahoma's original law concerning grand juries. In Oklahoma, district attorneys routinely prosecute by "Information" -- no affidavit of complaint, no grand jury indictment, etc. By going through these old laws, we were able to demonstrate that in order to prosecute anyone in Oklahoma for anything other than some nominal infraction tried in a police or magistrate court, there must be a grand jury indictment. The "information" is something the magistrate makes out after a probable cause hearing as the basis of an arrest warrant -- it is basically restatement of the affidavit of complaint by the complaining party. Because people are ignorant of the law -- I kind of think most district attorneys are ignorant of the law, too -- they make out "information’s", and their Information documents provide the basis of all felony and misdemeanor prosecution.

Guess who was first to receive the memorandum and support documentation? Our presiding district judge and the county sheriff. "This is the law -- we finally have it unraveled!"

Now, who has good faith notice of the law? Nobody will be surprised when I pick a name out of the hat and file an application for writ of habeas corpus in the county court for release of someone tried and sentenced without a grand jury indictment. Nobody in my county will be surprised when it happens -- I know what I know, and they know what I know and that I know they know. And, of course, they know me. I have no reason to believe they don't all consider me as a hell of a nice guy.

What we learn so far as individual rights, and remedies, must be moved into proper judicial and political forums to secure rights of everyone. That is the only way the system can be recovered to avoid general meltdown. Then we can all serve on juries in good conscience, and can otherwise participate in political as well as judicial forums without concern for abridging the rights of others and compromising sovereignty and solvency of the nation. /s/ Dan Meador

?Good luck, Dan, I pray daily for your success, while doubting that you will find anyone of the hierarchy willing to give up their privileges.

ANY WAY OUT OF THE GLOBAL CRISIS? by Patrick J. Buchanan - Feb. 23, 1999

from Linda Muller (linda@theamericancause.org)

Now, it's official. The United States is the last great economy firing on all eight cylinders in a global collapse. America is the last domino.

In 1997, Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea had to be bailed out with $115 billion in International Monetary Fund loans. Last year, Russia, beneficiary of a $22 billion bailout, devalued its currency and defaulted. In January, Brazil devalued.

Comes now yet more disquieting news. The European Union is flagging. Germany's economy shrank in the fourth quarter, as industrial production fell in France. Japan is in recession, with a deficit at 11 percent of gross domestic product. Riots have broken out among China's unemployed. Even Taiwan, the Tiger that seemed immune, has lately taken to bed.

Yet, behold America! The U.S. economy grew at almost 6 percent in the fourth quarter; the Dow is well above 9000; and the American consumer is still drawing down savings to continue the greatest spending binge in history. (It is hard to turn down all of that de-flationary value! When other nations cut their prices to the bone so they can obtain the dollars needed to float their debt, people will continue to spend what they do not have, right into oblivion. - David)

But can it last? Is the United States still a powerful enough locomotive to pull Japan, China, Korea, Russia and Brazil out of the ditch if the European locomotive is idle? Even if the economic answer is yes, a political question arises: Can the United States remain the importer of only resort for a world in depression in the face of our awesome and exploding trade deficit? (Yes, as long as the bankers keep interest rates low, and the people can still float the debt from pay check to pay check. However, when the bubble bursts, it will be a very quick turn-around. - David)

Last week, the final numbers for '98 came in. The U.S. trade deficit in manufactures alone, $197 billion, was 12 times our trade surplus in farm goods. America's families are borrowing to buy foreign goods. Historically, that has been the road to imperial decline. Now, the U.S. economy is showing the first symptoms of the global sickness.

Farm income was down 25 percent in 1998; U.S. manufacturing lost another 200,000 jobs. Our steel industry is drowning in imports. The oil industry is laying off workers in the thousands, as falling prices force a shutdown of wells that cannot produce for $10 a barrel. Gasoline prices are at all-time lows, but U.S. oil dependency is now at a record high. The loss of our economic independence is the price of our present policy.

The Alfred E. Newman Conservative Club is still burbling, "Happy days are here again." Yet even Al Gore showed at the global gabfest in Davos, Switzerland, that he knows there is no painless way out.

The root cause of the global crisis is over-production. After the United States and IMF bailed out Mexico, huge quantities of capital poured into Asia for factories, plants and mines, creating a capacity to produce far more than the nations of the world had cash to consume. (It is not cash; it is credit, and this is the real problem. No one can halt or slow production because of the tremendous need for more dollars to service the debt. Besides, this was the idea to begin with. Drown America in imported goods, and destroy the economic engine. The bankers have used similar models of destruction everywhere they go. - David) With prices falling, the countries that greedily gobbled up the capital cannot repay their debts.

In a national economy, when there is a problem of over-production, the market solves it. Weak companies go under, and stronger companies down size or merge to cut excess capacity, until demand catches up. And banks, sadder but wiser, write off their bad debts to experience. (Of course, after the bankers get done counting the new wealth they own in the form of factories, stock, land, or something else that their make-believe credit gave them a bond on. And the same is true overseas; this is how most of the natural resources of the world have come to controlled by the bankers, and why the few that are left outside their control are now being locked up as "national treasures." - David)

But how do you tell the IMF and World Bank to write off hundreds of

billions in loans? (You don’t, and they are not going to. Those debts are now the problems of the world’s tax payers, and it is through this mechanism that most of the treaties needed to put the NWO in place are forced on those who have no wish to comply. - David) How do you tell Brazil to go Chapter 11? How do you tell Russia to down size? How do you tell Korea to merge with Taiwan? You cannot. Unlike companies, nations do not go gently into that good night, nor do they happily merge themselves out of existence.

So, a mad scramble has begun in Japan, China, East Asia, Russia and Brazil to dump goods in the only great market still open, the U.S.A. In a Darwinian war, they intend to save their factories by taking down ours.

For America, here is the rub: If we let them do it, they can eviscerate virtually every U.S. industry. If we don't let them do it, they will have to default and perhaps break the banks of Japan, Europe and maybe the United States.

Only three factors today prevent dozens of nations from defaulting: 1) a U.S. current account deficit that will shovel $300 billion overseas this year; 2) endless IMF and World Bank bailouts; 3) foreign aid.

At Davos, Gore declared: We must not let the financial crisis of 1998 become the trade crisis of 1999. So, we face a choice: Do we allow imports to destroy our industries and kill American jobs, so other nations can earn the dollars to restart their economies and pay back their debts to Western banks? Or do we tell the world that, as much as we would like to help, we cannot sacrifice our industries and our workers?

Eventually, it comes down to this: Do we give up our independence -- in the name of interdependence? Do we sacrifice the U.S. economy to the Global Economy? On this, Davos Republicans and Clintonites concur, but populists, patriots and true conservatives will put America first. (It does not matter what choice they make, the result is going to be the same! They can fidget with the interest rates a little more, if they do it ahead of time, and put off the burst for another year, maybe two, but if they wait until the crisis is well in hand, nothing could stop the process. And they know it, and this is what makes this time so dangerous. I will guarantee to you that they have every economic model possible on computer and are working with them on a daily basis, somewhere. - David)

Those who should pay the price of the foolish investments in Asia, Russia and Latin America are the foolish investors themselves.

We face today the moral dilemma of the overcrowded and sinking raft. Justice and patriotism argue: Save America, and shove the IMF off. After all, that crowd got us into this. 1999 Patrick J. Buchanan

FOR MORE NEWS VISIT OUR SITE: http://www.theamericancause.org

?A good over-view of the problem, with the normal gaping holes by anyone on the inside, which I consider Buchanan to be. And I can not stop the issues of health, so here is one more I consider very important.

Subject: Salon Magazine 2/17/99: Fear of fluoride

From: Silver <silver@pancom.net>

To: Brumbaugh <mrbill888@ycsi.net>

Absolute must reading if you care for you and your family's health.

http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1999/02/17news.html Fear of fluoride

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THIS CAVITY-FIGHTING CHEMICAL AREN'T JUST FOR RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACISTS ANYMORE.

BY MARK HERTSGAARD AND PHILLIP FRAZER

Have you read the fine print on your toothpaste tube recently? Check it out. If your toothpaste contains fluoride -- which nearly every brand in the United States does -- there's a consumer advisory message that might surprise and alarm you, especially if you're the parent of young children.

The advisory, which began appearing on fluoridated toothpaste in April 1997, by order of the Food and Drug Administration, begins with the familiar command to brush thoroughly at least twice a day. But then it includes special instructions for children ages two to six: "Use only a pea sized amount and supervise child's brushing and rinsing (to minimize swallowing)." Then comes an additional warning to keep the toothpaste "out of the reach of children under 6 years of age," and finally the ominous advice, "In case of accidental ingestion ... contact a Poison Control Center immediately."

What's going on here? Isn't toothpaste supposed to be good for us? Haven't we been told for decades -- by the government, by the American Dental Association, by countless Crest and Colgate television commercials -- that fluoride is essential to fighting cavities? Isn't that why nearly two-thirds of the public water supplies in the United States are fluoridated?

A recent issue of the new environmental newsletter News on Earth challenges this and other fluoride orthodoxies. Fluoride is, after all, an extremely toxic compound that originally was sold as a bug and rat poison.

A growing body of scientific research suggests that long-term fluoride consumption may cause numerous health problems, ranging from cancer and impaired brain function to brittle bones and fluorosis (the white splotches on teeth that indicate weak enamel). An estimated 22 percent of American children have some form of fluorosis.

Research is also beginning to show that the cavity-fighting power of fluoride may have been overstated. Recent studies in the Journal of Dental Research conclude that tooth decay rates in Western Europe, which is 98 percent unfluoridated, have declined as much as they have in the United States in recent decades. Indeed, it's only in the United States that fluoride is championed by the government; most European nations -- including Germany, France, Sweden and Holland -- prohibit fluoride on public health grounds.

Opposition to fluoride was once confined to far-right conspiracy buffs, as parodied in the movie Dr. Strangelove. But the new evidence against fluoride comes from credentialed scientists in such mainstream institutions as the Environmental Protection Agency and Harvard's Forsyth Research Institute. And where water fluoridation was once a liberal cause, opposition to fluoride now comes from the left, specifically some environmental groups and at least one labor union. Local 2050 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, which represents all the scientists, engineers and other professionals at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., has voted unanimously to co-sponsor a citizens' petition to prevent fluoridation of California's waters. (Local 2050 has also filed a grievance asking for bottled water at EPA headquarters, due to fears about fluoride.) The union's letter endorsing the petition, sent in 1997, read in part:

"Our members' review of the body of evidence over the past eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicates a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children ... there is substantial evidence of adverse health effects, and contrary to public perception, virtually no evidence of significant benefits."

"Would you brush your teeth with arsenic?" asks Dr. Robert Carton, a former scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency whose union is Local 2050. "Fluoride is somewhat less toxic than arsenic and more toxic than lead, and you wouldn't want either of them in your mouth."

Nevertheless, the official momentum behind fluoride is considerable. The Clinton administration's stated goal is to increase the number of Americans with fluoridated tap water from 62 percent today to 75 percent by 2000. The National Institute of Health supports this target. "We are for water fluoridation, of course, 100 percent," says Sally Wilberding of NIH's National Dental Research Institute. The same goes for the American Dental Association.

"I'm a very big supporter of appropriate use of fluorides," says Dr. John Stamm, dean of the School of Dentistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an official fluoride spokesman for the ADA. Stamm argues that fluoridation has significantly decreased tooth decay in the United States over the past 50 years. He attributes Western Europeans' shunning of fluoridation to "cultural differences" in the approach to dental care.

Fluoride's positive image in the United States may rest in part on the whitewashing of unwelcome research findings and the firing of scientists who dared question fluoride's benefits. Dr. William Marcus, formerly the chief toxicologist for the EPA's Office of Drinking Water, lost his job in 1991 after he insisted on an unbiased evaluation of fluoride's potential to cause cancer. Marcus fought his dismissal in court, proved that it was politically motivated and eventually won reinstatement. Marcus now declines comment on the episode beyond saying, "I was right about fluoride's carcinogenicity, and now we know that." An investigation by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 1991 supported Marcus' charges, documenting that government scientists had been coerced to change their findings and portray fluoride more favorably.

Dr. William Hirzy, a senior EPA scientist and the senior vice president of Local 2050, explains that, in 1977, Congress had instructed NIH's National Toxicology Program to investigate fluoride's effects on lab animals, a task that got assigned to the government's Battelle Laboratories. In the tests, rats and mice were given fluoride in their drinking water. Thirteen years later, the results came back, but not until they had been "adjusted" by a senior official of the United States Public Health Service to suggest that fluoride had no carcinogenic effects.

In response, Marcus urged in a May 1, 1990, memo that the fluoride study be "reviewed by an outside panel not related to the Public Health Service, because the PHS has been in the business of promoting fluoridation for more than fifty years." The memo from Marcus said, "In almost all cases, the Battelle-board certified pathologists' findings were downgraded [by the PHS], with the effect of downgrading the study's conclusion from definitive evidence of carcinogenicity to equivocal evidence."

"One of the most telling parts of that study," says Hirzy, who stresses that he speaks as a union official rather than an EPA spokesman, "is that the rats who got bone cancer had lower levels of fluoride in their bones than people who drink tap water with 4 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride would have. But EPA says that 4 ppm is absolutely no danger to your health; in fact, that's the official standard in this country. That conclusion is such a fraud there are no words to describe it." Hirzy adds that Local 2050 has "filed a grievance asking to be given bottled water here in the EPA headquarters, because the tap water has 1 ppm of fluoride, and all the data we look at says 1 ppm is hazardous."

"There are three or four very strong anti-fluoridation experts in the EPA union, but we feel there's no scientific basis for their charges," responds Tom Reeves, a national fluoridation engineer at the federal Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. Reeves says that two major studies -- one commissioned by the National Academy of Science, one by the Public Health Service -- "examined those charges and found no truth to them." Reeves denies Marcus' accusation that the data gathered by Battelle scientists were tampered with, though he concedes that the congressional investigation concluded otherwise.

At Harvard, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix says she lost her job at the Forsyth Research Institute, which specializes in dental issues, in 1994, after she insisted on publishing research results in the scholarly journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology showing that fluoride adversely affected brain function. By then, Mullenix had spent 12 years at Forsyth's toxicology department, 11 of them as department chairwoman; she was highly regarded for her previous research demonstrating how exposure to lead and radiation lowered children's IQ levels.

"To be honest, I thought studying fluoride would be a waste of time," says Mullenix. "I mean, it's in the water supply, so it's got to be safe, right?" But Mullenix's research found that rats who experienced prenatal exposure to fluoride exhibited higher levels of hyperactivity, while rats with postnatal exposure suffered the reverse: "hypoactivity -- that is, a slowing down of their spontaneous movements -- sitting, standing, smelling, turning the head, etc. ... The reactions of these animals reminded me of the reactions you'd find from high exposure to radiation."

Mullenix says that her superiors ordered her not to publish her results. "Don Hay, the associate director of Forsyth, came and told me, 'If you publish this information, we won't get any more grants from NIDR

[the National Institute of Dental Research],' and Forsyth gets about 90 percent of its money from NIDR. I was really upset. I'd never been told not to publish a paper." Within hours of learning that she was indeed publishing her paper, Forsyth fired her, says Mullenix.

"Dr. Mullenix's claim that I wanted to stop her publishing her results, showing a fluoride toxicity in rats, is false," wrote Donald Hay, after consulting with his institute's attorneys. "My concern was that Dr. Mullenix, who had no published record in fluoride research, was reaching conclusions that seemed to differ from a large body of research reported over the last fifty years. These extensive studies have been reviewed and approved by prestigious organizations (American Medical Association and American Dental Association), and indicated that fluoride at ordinary levels was safe. I brought these concerns to her attention." Hay adds, "Dr. Mullenix's claim that she was dismissed after her fluoride paper was accepted is false. We had no knowledge of the acceptance of her paper prior to the time she left [Forsyth]." Hay says Mullenix was dismissed because of problems with the quality of her work.

But if fluoride's health advantages are at least open to question, why is it still being promoted in the United States? " The American Dental Association and the Public Health Service have been committed to fluoridation as a safe and effective way to reduce cavities for 50 years or so, so how could they now come out and admit maybe it isn't safe and effective?" asks the EPA's Hirzy, who adds that besides bureaucratic inertia, there is corporate incentive. Fluoride is a waste product of many heavy industries; it is emitted by aluminum, steel and fertilizer factories, coal-burning power plants and in the production of glass, cement and other items made from clay. These industries would have to pay dearly to dispose of their waste fluoride if they could not sell it to municipalities for adding to tap water. Hirzy cites a memo written on March 30, 1983, by Rebecca Hammer, the deputy assistant administrator in EPA's Office of Drinking Water, which called water fluoridation "an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem." (Oh, my, I do hope Rebecca Hammer’s children are well fluoridated. I mean, we must all do our part! - David)

"In other words," says Hirzy, "this [fluoride] that otherwise would be an air and water pollutant is no longer a pollutant as long as it's poured into your reservoir and drinking water. The solution to pollution is dilution, and in this case the dilution is your drinking water. It's a good deal for the fertilizer industry. Instead of paying a substantial amount to cart this stuff away, they get paid $180 a long ton by the water municipalities." (It’s called farming the tax payers, and never forget for a moment that at the top, there are those who understand exactly what fluoride is and intend the increased disease and mental break down of the American people. You can not escape this with canned food or with drinking water systems in the cities [just think about everything you are exposed to that has fluoridated water in it, including your shower, the grass, etc.]. You must be out where you can control your water source, and this means a clean well. - David)

Fluoridation may be an infamous right-wing cause, but the corporate history of fluoride could stir the blood of left-wing conspiracists as well. The fluoride disposal problem arose during World War II, when demand for war materials meant increased production of aluminum, steel and other fluoride-related products. At the end of the war, with massive amounts of fluoride waste needing disposal, the Public Health Service began pushing to add fluoride to the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., and dozens of other U.S. cities. At the time, the Public Health Service was being run by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), which had dominated fluoride research since the 1920s. By 1950, as the fluoridation campaign gained steam, the Public Health Service was headed by another top Alcoa official, Oscar R. Ewing, who in turn was aided by Edward L. Bernays, the father of modern public relations and author of the book "Propaganda," who sought to portray fluoride's opponents as wackos.

Whatever its origins, is it possible that America's 50-year embrace of fluoridation has been a terrible mistake? The town of Natick, near Boston, recently reviewed the research and found that there was more than enough fluoride now packaged in our food, drinks and toothpaste’s; the town decided not to fluoridate its water. Los Angeles, Newark and Jersey City, N.J., and Bedford, Mass., have also removed fluoride from their water.

Critics like Mullenix, Hirzy, Marcus and Carton say we don't yet know enough to say definitively that it's all been a mistake. They want more research by the scientific community, more coverage of the dispute by the media and more awareness of the health risks by the American people.

As more parents begin to notice the warnings on toothpaste labels -- and those nasty, irreversible white spots on their kids' teeth -- the issue may once again get the attention and the debate it deserves. SALON | Feb. 17, 1999

Mark Hertsgaard is the author of four books, including "Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future," published this month by Broadway Books. Phillip Frazer is the editor of News On Earth; subscriptions are available at mailto:noe@newslet.com

We face uncertain times ahead, that we can be assured of. COPM's ministry is to provide access to tools for spiritual help (i.e. an Internet Strong's Concordance and an Audio Bible). Go to http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/covenants/ministry.html

We also distribute Non Hybrid Wheat seed, Diatomaceous Earth and Colloidal Silver Generators (for water purification) at http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/covenants/index.html

Visit our New Bookstore at http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/covenants/bookstore.html

Page me via ICQ Pager at http://wwp.mirabilis.com/12848629#pager Covenants Of Promise Ministries (alternate websight) http://covenants.virtualave.net

THE DAILY MOTIVATOR Someday

Someday you'll discover that living brings more fulfillment than buying. Someday you'll realize that each day is a golden treasure, far too precious to be wasted pursuing someone else's idea of happiness. Someday you'll discover that you already have enough, and will spend your time being rather than getting. Someday you'll understand the futility of taking shortcuts, and will hunger for the solid nourishment of living with integrity. Someday you'll experience the magnificent abundance which comes from giving of yourself. Someday you'll live each moment with purpose and passion.

That someday is coming. There's nothing stopping it but you. Someday life will be filled with joy and meaning. That someday can be today. Live it, and it is yours.

After a forest fire in Yellowstone National Park, forest rangers began their trek up a mountain to assess the inferno's damage. One ranger found a bird literally petrified in ashes, perched statuesquely on the ground at the base of a tree. Somewhat sickened by the eerie sight, he knocked over the bird which a stick. When he struck it, three tiny chicks scurried from under their dead mother's wings.

The loving mother, keenly aware of impending disaster, had carried her offspring to the base of the tree and had gathered them under her wings, instinctively knowing that the toxic smoke would rise. She could have flown to safety but had refused to abandon her babies. When the blaze had arrived and the heat had singed her small body, the mother remained steadfast. She had been willing to die, so those under the cover of her wings would live.

He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge: His faithfulness will be your shield and rampart. -Psalm 91:4

People continue to ask me why I do this: I am my brother’s Keeper...

"But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood." Ezekiel 33:6 (NIV) To me, these are not just "words," and I hope you are beginning to understand.

This concludes Part XVIII; if you are ready, please E-mail <coffee@infotech.net.mx> and request Part XIX. God Bless, David